ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Leave is granted. 2. The defendant in Suit No. 3/96 titled Krishna Engineering Works v. M/s. Damodar Ropeways on the file of the Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, Delhi is the appellant in this appeal. It challenges the order of the High Court of Delhi in CR 1198/97 dated December 10, 1999. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of money, said to be damages, from the appellant. The summons of the suit was served on the appellant requiring it to appear on December 12, 1991. On 9-12-1991, the appellant filed an application seeking leave to defend the case. Indeed, the application ought to have been filed within 10 days from the date of the service of the summons: there was thus delay in filing of the application. The learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, having accepted the explanation given by the applicant condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and permitted it to file written statement and contest the suit by order dated 28-8-1997. That order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court in Civil Revision No. 1198/97 filed under Section 115 C.P.C. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the said order dated 28-8-1997 on the ground that the approach of the trial court was wrong and that the learned trial judge did not apply its mind. We are afraid, we cannot accept the reasoning of the High Court. In a revision under Section 115, C.P.C., it is now well-settled, the errors which the High Court is entitled to correct are the errors of jurisdiction. An order condoning the delay in filing the affidavit to contest the case by filing written statement is not an order suffering from any error of jurisdiction and therefore the High Court ought not to have upset that order. On this ground we set aside the order of the High Court under challenge and restore the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. Accordingly, we allow the appeal; there shall be no order as to costs. 4. We may observe that as the suit was filed as long back as in the year 1984, the trial court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously, in any event, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appeal allowed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal; there shall be no order as to costs. 4. We may observe that as the suit was filed as long back as in the year 1984, the trial court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously, in any event, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appeal allowed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : M/s. Damodar Ropeways & Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Engineering Works, 2001(6) Supreme 424 00023