ORDER 1. With the consent of parties the matter is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 6.6.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue by which, an application for restoration of revision has been dismissed. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner had filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The said revision was dismissed for default of appearance on 21.1.2014, therefore, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of the aforesaid revision on 16.4.2014. However, the aforesaid application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 6.6.2014 by Board of Revenue inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for filing application for restoration after delay of 50 days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the counsel engaged by the petitioner did not apprise him about the dismissal of the revision and as soon as the petitioner came to know about dismissal of the revision petition, filed an application seeking restoration of the revision. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the order passed by Board of Revenue. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The application for condonation of delay as well as the application for restoration were duly supported by an affidavit. The ground for condonation of delay taken in the application is that the counsel engaged by the petitioner did not apprise him about the dismissal of the revision in default. The petitioner immediately on coming to know about the dismissal of the revision, filed an application for restoration. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that for fault committed by the counsel, a party should not be penalized and the expression a sufficient cause a employed by the Legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice- that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It has further been held that while dealing with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, it deserves to be construed liberally so as to advance cause of justice. 6. It has further been held that while dealing with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, it deserves to be construed liberally so as to advance cause of justice. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 6.6.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue suffers from the error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, it is quashed. The revision preferred by the petitioner is restored to file and the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.