JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholakia, J. xxx xxx xxx. 2. I have heard learned advocate Shri S.M. Shah for the petitioner and Mr. Y.S. Mankad, learned advocate for the respondent-landlord. Mr. Shah has mainly argued that the present petitioner could not file the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot, because he was not properly advised by his advocate and, therefore, the delay caused in filing the appeal on account of improper advise given by his advocate must be condoned. Mr. Shah has drawn my attention towards the execution proceedings and stated that petitioner was conscious for protecting his possession and he was very much interested to proceed further in the litigation and, therefore, throughout he remained active. Even instead of filing appeal before the District Court, he has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 50/98 which is nothing, but result of ill-advice given by his advocate for which he should not be punished. Therefore, it seems that the petitioner had not left the battle and proceeded further in the matter as per the advice of his advocate and therefore, the delay in filing appeal occurred due to improper advice of his advocate and after he was given proper advice, immediately he has filed the appeal before the District Court, Rajkot, along with delay condone application. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, delay caused in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-8-94, passed by the Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot, is required to be condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision reported in A.I.R. 1998 SC 3222 N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy wherein at head-note it is held as under: "Limitation Act (36 of 1963)-S. 5-Condonation of delay-Sufficient cause-Application by appellant for setting aside ex parte decree-Delay of 883 days in filing of-Said delay caused due to failure of the advocate to inform appellant as well as his failure to take action-Found to be satisfactory by Trial Court-Order of High Court in Revision setting aside same-Not proper-Court should compensate opposite party in such cases-Mereso in this case since appellant had secured compensation from delinquent advocate." 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has argued that there is delay of more than three years and no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for condoning the same and, therefore, present Civil Revision Application is required to be dismissed. He has also drawn my attention towards Regular Civil Suit No. 50/98 and argued that instead of filing appeal, the petitioner filed the above suit. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced a certified copy of Regular Civil Suit No. 50/98 which is ordered to be taken on record. 4. Considering rival contentions, it seems that the petitioner was very much interested and remained active into the proceedings, but on account of improper advice of his advocate, he had not filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-8-94, passed by the learned Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot, and instead of that the petitioner contested execution proceedings and instead of filing appeal filed R.C.S. No. 50/98. Therefore, as per the settled principle of law and in view of the decision rendered in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) delay caused due to failure of the advocate to inform appellant as well as his failure to take action and to give proper advice and as a result of that if any delay is occurred, the same is required to be condoned by giving compensation to opposite party. Here, in this case, the Court (Coram: Kundan Singh, J.) while admitting the matter awarded cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent. The order passed by the Court (Coram: Kundan Singh, J.) on 27-3-2000 reads as under: "Rule returnable within two months, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the entire outstanding dues till the date of dispossession pursuant to the decree, minus the amount if any paid and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs, within two months. List the Revision Application for final hearing in the week commencing from 26th June, 2000" (Para 5) 5. In view of the above order the petitioner has deposited the amount in the Trial Court on 26th May, 2000. Even the petitioner is ready to pay some more amount towards cost for condonation of delay. 5,000/- towards costs, within two months. List the Revision Application for final hearing in the week commencing from 26th June, 2000" (Para 5) 5. In view of the above order the petitioner has deposited the amount in the Trial Court on 26th May, 2000. Even the petitioner is ready to pay some more amount towards cost for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made a statement at the bar that if the delay will be condoned, the petitioner will not ask any interim order in the appeal for restoration of possession of the suit premises. Otherwise, also the delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-8-94 has occurred on account of ill-advice of the advocate for the petitioner for which the petitioner should not penalised and cost to the other side for the same will serve the ends of justice. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed and delay caused in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-8-94, passed by the learned Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot, is required to be condoned. xxx xxx xxx.