JUDGMENT: 1. AN order of eviction was passed against the petitioner being an unauthorised occupant under the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Property) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1980 by the Estate Manger, appointed under the said Act. The said order of eviction was passed on 16th March, 2009. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order. Hence, he challenged the propriety of the said order before this Hon'ble Court in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The said writ petition which was registered as W. P. No. 7429(w) of 2009 was ultimately dismissed on contest by the writ Court on merit. Thus, the order of eviction which was passed by the Estate Manager on 16th March, 2009 was approved by this Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid writ petition. 2. SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner filed an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 51 of 2009 for challenging the order passed by the Estate Manager before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. Since the said appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, an application for condonation of delay was also filed by the petitioner in the said appeal. It was stated in the said application that due to wrong advice given by the petitioner's learned Advocate, the petitioner instead of filing this appeal earlier, filed the said writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. SUBSEQUENTLY, when the petitioner was apprised of the legal position about the forum of challenge for challenging the propriety of the order of the Estate Manager in appeal before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, the petitioner filed the instant appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. It was further stated in the said application that due to the petitioner's illness for the period from 16th august, 2009 to 25th October, 2009, the said appeal could not be filed immediately after the dismissal of the writ petition. However, after recovery from the said illness, the instant appeal was filed by the petitioner on 29th October, 2009. The learned Trial Judge rejected the petitioner's said application for condonation of delay by holding inter alia, that delay caused in filing the appeal due to wrong advice of the lawyer on a settled position in law, cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. The learned Trial Judge also disbelieved the petitioner's illness for the said period. The learned Trial Judge rejected the petitioner's said application for condonation of delay by holding inter alia, that delay caused in filing the appeal due to wrong advice of the lawyer on a settled position in law, cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. The learned Trial Judge also disbelieved the petitioner's illness for the said period. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge rejected the petitioner's said application for condonation of delay. 3. THE petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. Hence, he has come before, this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. HEARD Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record, including the order impugned. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. 5. AT the very outset, I want to keep it on record that I fully agree with the findings of the learned Appeal Court to the effect that delay paused in filing the appeal due to wrong advice of a lawyer on a settled position in law, cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Here is the case, where this Court finds that the instant revisional application has not been filed by the learned lawyer who filed the writ petition earlier on behalf of the petitioner. This Court also does not find any affidavit and/or any other supporting material where from this Court can ascertain that the petitioner filed the earlier writ petition on the wrong advice of the lawyer. This Court also cannot hold that the advice given by the petitioner's lawyer for challenging the said eviction order before this Court in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction was wrong. After all the said writ petition was not dismissed on the ground of its maintainability. It is a settled position in law that availability of a remedy by way of an appeal is not an absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition. As such, inspite of availability of a forum for challenging an order in appeal, a party can approach a Writ Court for challenging the order of the Estate Manager who is an instrumentality of the State. As such, inspite of availability of a forum for challenging an order in appeal, a party can approach a Writ Court for challenging the order of the Estate Manager who is an instrumentality of the State. Here the parties participated in the hearing of said writ petition without raising any objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition was decided on merit. 6. THUS, this is not a case where jurisdiction of this Court to try the said writ petition was inherently lacking. As such, this Court cannot hold that ultimate decision which was taken by this Hon'ble Court in its writ jurisdiction is a nullity. Thus, when the order passed by the'Estate Manager was approved on merit by this Hon'ble Court in its constitutional writ jurisdiction, this Court holds that such an order cannot be assailed either directly or indirectly before a Court which is sub-ordinate to this High Court. A contrary view cannot be taken as, if such a view is taken then the learned Chief Judge of the City Civil Court will have to consider the propriety of the order of the Estate Manager which was merged within the order of the Writ Court, which in my view is an impossible proposition. 7. ACCORDINGLY, this Court holds that even the appeal itself is not maintainable. That apart, when this Court is also not satisfied with regard to the explanation for the delay given by the petitioner in his said application in filing this appeal, this Court does not feel it necessary to interfere with the impugned order. 8. THE revisional application, thus, stands rejected.