JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the revision is disposed of finally. 2. This revision has been preferred against the impugned order of the learned appellate Court dated 15.2.2001 rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2000. 3. Along with the memo of appeal an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred by the appellant-petitioner pointing out that the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner had not informed him about the disposal of the suit and he could know only on 5.1.2001 about the said fact. He applied for copy of the impugned judgment and decree on the same date and it was given to him on 11.1.2001. He took only 4-5 days to present the memo of appeal on 16.1.2001. It was averred in the application that the counsel for the appellant- petitioner never informed him and as soon as he came to know about disposal of the suit he immediately approached the appellate Court. However, the learned appellate Court rejected the said application. Hence this revision. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the fault of the counsel as he did not inform the petitioner. The delay was bona fide and not intentional. It has vehemently been argued that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of his counsel. 5. The Courts have consistently held that a bona fide client may not be punished for the inaction/fault of his lawyer (vide Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1400 ; Smt. Lachi & Ors. v. Director of Land Records & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 41 ; Goswami Krishna Murarilal Sharma v. Dhan Prakash & Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 574 ; Sahil Ram Ishar Das v. Sadarngani & Ors., 1992 SCW 3445 ; Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439 ; Sushila Narahari & Ors. v. Nand Kumari, 1996 DNJ (SC) 402 ; and Jai Kishan & Ors. v. The Municipal Board, Sanchore, 2002(1) WLN 58 . 6. Thus, in view of the above the learned appellate Court should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. v. Nand Kumari, 1996 DNJ (SC) 402 ; and Jai Kishan & Ors. v. The Municipal Board, Sanchore, 2002(1) WLN 58 . 6. Thus, in view of the above the learned appellate Court should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the appellate Court dated 15.2.2001 is hereby set aside. The delay is condoned. The learned appellate Court is requested to entertain the appeal on merits. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred) to the non-petitioner.Revision Petition Allowed. *******