JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment dated 7.2.2014, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Sikar (hereinafter the Appellate Tribunal) whereby the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanying his appeal against the judgment and certificate of possession dated 4.1.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal Sikar has been dismissed. 2. Admittedly, the certificate of possession under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter the Act of 2001) was issued in favour of the respondent-landlord on 4.1.2010. In terms of Section 19(6) of the Act of 2001 an appeal against the judgment and certificate of possession has to be filed within sixty days. In the instant case the petitioner tenant after belatedly obtaining certified copy of the judgment and certificate of possession on 8.11.2010, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal on 6.12.2010. Also filed was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Appellate Rent Tribunal held that from the case set up by the tenant in his application for condonation of delay no sufficient cause was made out for not filing the appeal within the permissible time. Consequently the tenant's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner tenant and perused the impugned order. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the tenant was not informed by his counsel with regard to the final judgment and certificate of possession dated 4.1.2010 and it was the lack of information by the counsel which had occasioned the delay in filing an appeal. It was submitted that in the circumstances, the Appellate Rent Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay on the well settled ground that a litigant cannot be made to suffer for a failure of the counsel to discharge his obligation. 5. Heard. 6. I am of the considered view that a litigant is required to keep in constant touch with his Advocate during pendency of the case entrusted to him. An advocate cannot function in court without proper assistance and support of his client. Further with the passing of the final judgment, the relationship between the client and his Advocate comes to an end. An advocate cannot function in court without proper assistance and support of his client. Further with the passing of the final judgment, the relationship between the client and his Advocate comes to an end. It was for the petitioner tenant to have remained vigilant with regard to the case pending before the Rent Tribunal, which was not very difficult with the ease of communications presently obtaining. Aside of the aforesaid, the Appellate Rent Tribunal found no force in the contention of the petitioner tenant attributing the delay in filing an appeal to his advocate's lack of information regarding the final judgment by the Rent Tribunal, as no relevant material was produced in support of the contention which remained bald. 7. Law of limitation encapsulates public policy. Litigation cannot be allowed to fester forever to public detriment. Remedies provided in law such as of appeal are to be availed within limitation provided. Sufficient cause for the delay has to be proved to seek condonation of delay in availing a remedy and bald allegations alone cannot suffice. No sufficient material was placed before the Appellate Tribunal for the delay in filing the appeal. That is a finding of fact from the material on record before the Tribunal. 8. Counsel for the petitioner tenant has not been able to make out a case of the impugned order suffering from any perversity or misdirection in law to warrant interference by this court under Article and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. I find no force in the petition. It is dismissed.