( 1 ) THESE civil revision petitions are directed against the common order, 27-10-2004 passed in e. A. No. 271 of 2004 and E. A. No. 241 of 2004 in E. P. No. 50 of 1997. As the point involved is one and the same, these revision petitions are taken up for disposal by this common order. ( 2 ) E. A. NO. 271 of 2004 is filed to reopen E. A. No. 241 of 2004 and to receive the application under Section 14 of the limitation Act, 1963 (for short "the Act" ). E. A. No. 241 of 2004 is filed under Order 21, Rule 89 C. P. C. to set aside the sale held on 8-12-1998. ( 3 ) THE facts are that the plaintiff-1st respondent herein filed O. S. No. 373 of 1992 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 34,072/ -. As the petitioner herein i. e. , the defendant and his wife in the suit did not contest the matter, the suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the plaintiff-decree holder filed e. P. No. 50 of 1997 for recovery of the decretal amount of Rs. 59,368/ -. As the amount was not paid, she filed an application for sale of the house property bearing No. 1-328 (old) and 1-5-47 (new) of Kazipet and the property was sold in public auction on 8-12-1998 by the 2nd respondent herein. ( 4 ) AFTER about five years i. e. on 10-7-2003, the sale was confirmed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein. Before the sale was confirmed, the defendant and his wife, who are the judgment debtors woke up and filed E. A. No. 326 of 1998 under order 21, Rule-90 to set aside the said sale, but the Court below dismissed it. Against the said order, the judgment debtors approached this Court and filed C. M. A. No. 860 of 1999, which also was dismissed on 25-2-2003. But, this Court, while dismissing the appeal permitted the judgment debtors to deposit the entire decretal amount and further observed that on such deposit, an application may be filed to set aside the sale that was held on 8-12-1998. But, this Court, while dismissing the appeal permitted the judgment debtors to deposit the entire decretal amount and further observed that on such deposit, an application may be filed to set aside the sale that was held on 8-12-1998. It appears that the defendant i. e. , the petitioner herein and his wife Mary Agnes, who are the judgment debtors did not comply with the said direction, but in the month of September, 2004, they deposited the decretal amount and filed the present application i. e. E. A. No. 241 of 2004 stating that they complied with the order, and thus, requested the Court below to set aside the sale. At the same time, they filed another application i. e. E. A. No. 271 of 2004 stating that the entire period during which they were bona fide prosecuting the matter in this Court as well as in the Court below shall be excluded as contemplated under Section 14 of the limitation Act. These petitions were opposed by the decree holder i. e. the 1st respondent herein, and the Court below, on analysis, dismissed the said application. As already stated, against the said orders, these revision petitions are carried. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for both the parties. ( 6 ) NO doubt, Section 14 of the Act deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction and it reads as follows : (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceedings relate to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceedings is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2, Order XXIII of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, the provisions of sub- section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under Rule 1 of that order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of defect in the jurisdiction of the Court or other cause of a like nature. Explanation :-For the purpose of this section- (a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted; (b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding; (c) Misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a nature with defect of jurisdiction. The words used in the said provision "bona fide and Due Diligence" have greater significance. It is not a mere formality and it must be understood in the way the words are inserted in the said provision. It is only when the petitioner has understood those words in their right perspective, he is able to establish that he has bona fides in prosecuting the litigation. Though the said prosecution is in a Court, which has no jurisdiction, the Courts may definitely exclude the said time spent on such litigation. In the instant case, no doubt, the petitioner has fatigue litigation in a Court of competent jurisdiction, but in my considered view, the entire litigation is lacking bona fides. It is mentioned at Para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of E. A. Nos. 271 of 2004 and 241 of 2004 which reads as follows : "i further submit that I am ah ordinary citizen, layman and I cannot have any idea of the correct proceedings and the correct Court. I totally depended on the legal advise given by my advocates time to time and acted as per their advise to file one or the other applications and revisions. I humbly submit in this matter that the only decree is for recovery of money under a promissory note of Rs. 34,072/- (Rupees thirty four thousand seventy two only) and my property was sold in the auction for Rs. I humbly submit in this matter that the only decree is for recovery of money under a promissory note of Rs. 34,072/- (Rupees thirty four thousand seventy two only) and my property was sold in the auction for Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand only) whereas my property is worth of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs only) in the market and even as per the record, the value is more than Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only ). In my considered view, it is a lame excuse and cannot be said to be a bona fide mistake and he was prosecuting the entire litigation with due diligence. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that the entire exercise is bona fide, when once this Court disposed of the appeal on 25-2-2003 and permitted him to deposit the decretal amount to establish his bona fides, he should have come forward with the decretal amount, deposited the same and filed an application to set aside the said sale, but he took his own time and waited till september, 2004 to deposit the said amount. Thus, even at this stage, he has not established his bona fides. Further, the auction purchaser purchased the property and deposited the sale proceeds into the court and now, the auction purchaser cannot be deprived of the property which he got legally in an auction held by the Court. ( 7 ) HENCE, this Court holds that the orders passed by the Court below are perfectly justified and no interference is called for. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.