ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2001, passed by Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/01, the present revision petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent No.1, against the respondent Not. 2 and the petitioner. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioner. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and case was fixed for recording of the evidence. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court, therefore, the case proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and a decree was passed in ex parte against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner. Since the appeal was not in time, therefore, an application was filed for condonation of delay. Appeal filed by the petitioner was numbered as 25-A/2001 and was dismissed on 5.9.2001 on the ground that no sufficient ground is made out for condonation of delay, against which the present petition is filed, which was initially registered as second appeal and was converted into civil revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit proceeded ex parte against the petitioner w.e.f. 7.12.1998, therefore, the petitioner was having no knowledge about the judgment, which was passed in ex parte on 22.3.1999, hence the appeal was filed with a delay on 24.8.1999. Learned counsel submits that a technical approach is taken by the learned appellate Court in dismissing the appeal. 5. From perusal of the order it appears that on 15.7.1999, possession of the suit property was taken from the petitioner and petitioner applied for the certified copies of the order on 16.7.1999, which was obtained on the same day. While the appeal has been filed on 24.8.1999. 6. In the trial Court the case proceeded ex parte against the petitioner w.e.f. 7.12.1998 and ex parte decree was passed on 22.3.1999. The possession was taken on 15.7.1999, the certified copy was obtained on 16.7.1999, therefore, there was no justification for the delay from 16.7.1999 to 23.8.1999. It is incorrect to say that the delay was of 5 days for which no explanation was given. In fact that delay was w.e.f. 16.7.1999 to 23.8.1999. The possession was taken on 15.7.1999, the certified copy was obtained on 16.7.1999, therefore, there was no justification for the delay from 16.7.1999 to 23.8.1999. It is incorrect to say that the delay was of 5 days for which no explanation was given. In fact that delay was w.e.f. 16.7.1999 to 23.8.1999. Apart from this in view of the law laid down in the matter of Shyamsunder Sharma v. Pannalal laiswal and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 226 , the revision petition is not maintainable. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in dismissing the appeal. In view of this the revision petition stands dismissed.