JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri. Rajesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The application of the petitioner filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 challenging the decree dated 03.01.2005 passed in SCC Suit No. 115 of 2002 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 03.10.2015 by the Additional District Judge in exercising powers of the Small Causes Court. 3. The facts reveals that the aforesaid SCC suit for rent and eviction was decreed against the petitioner on 03.01.2005. The petitioner is said to have acquired knowledge of the said decree on 28.07.2005. He applied under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the same. The application was rejected on 13.03.2013. The matter was taken to the High Court and to the Supreme Court but the petitioner lost. Thereafter, petitioner filed an objections under Section 47 CPC, they were rejected vide order dated 26.07.2014. 4. After having failed in his attempt in both the above proceedings, the petitioner preferred revision under Section 25 of the Act challenging the judgement and decree dated 03.01.2005 along with an application for condoning the delay in filing the same. 5. The aforesaid application has been rejected and consequently the revision has been dismissed as barred by time. 6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing of the proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 and objection under Section 47 CPC be excluded and the delay may be condoned. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the judgement order and decree dated 03.01.2005 on 28.07.2015. Thereafter, he had been pursuing the matter before the different foras by way of proceeding under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC and byway of objections under Section 47 CPC. The petitioner despite knowledge of the decree failed to challenge the decree on merits. 8. The petitioner took a calculated risk of seeking relief under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC in preference to availing the remedy of revision. Once he has failed in his above attempt and allows the time for filing the revision to expire, he cannot ask for excusing him for not filing the revision in time. 9. 8. The petitioner took a calculated risk of seeking relief under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC in preference to availing the remedy of revision. Once he has failed in his above attempt and allows the time for filing the revision to expire, he cannot ask for excusing him for not filing the revision in time. 9. In view of the above, the delay in filing the revision after about 9 years of the decree is unexplained and there is no sufficient cause for condoning the same. 10. Accordingly, the court below has not committed any error of law in rejecting the delay condonation application and revision as barred by time. 11. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.