JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. The order dated 25-9-1997 (Annexure-I) passed by the District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Misc. Appeal No. 63 of 1991 is assailed in this Writ Petition filed in the year 2003, i.e. after nine years of the said order. Explaining the delay, it is submitted that the Petitioners who were the Appellants in the aforesaid Misc. Appeal (Defendants in T.S. No. 44/69 of the Court of the then Subordinate Judge, Berhampur) had filed Civil Revision No. 302 of 1997 before this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the District Judge vide Annexure-I and that Revision was disposed of on 11-11-2003 as not maintainable whereafter the present Writ Petition was filed.
2. The grievance of the Petitioners is with regard to rejection of a petition filed by them under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC praying to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 31-3-1982 in the Title Suit No. 44 of 1969 and registered as MJC No. 85 of 1982. When the said MJC was sub judice, the Court of the then Subordinate Judge started functioning at Chatrapur and the matter was transferred from Berhampur to Chatrapur Court and registered as MJC No. 70 of 1983. As the Petitioners could not take steps in the said MJC the same was dismissed for default on 11-7-1985. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11-7-1985 the Petitioners preferred Civil Revision No. 148 of 1989, i.e. after four years of the said order, before this Court mainly on the ground that they were not aware of the order of dismissal of the MJC. The said Civil Revision No. 148 of 1989 was dismissed as withdrawn on 9-10-1991 as the same was not maintainable as per the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 (d) CPC. While dismissing the Revision this Court however granted liberty to the Petitioners to file a Misc. Appeal within three weeks after the Puja holidays. Thereafter the Petitioners had filed Misc.Appeal No. 63 of 1995 before the District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur taking the plea that after transfer of MJC No. 85 of 1982 from, the Court at Berhampur to the Court at Chatrapur, no notice was ever served upon them and as such they had no knowledge of such transfer. While they were all along waiting for notice from Court, all of a sudden could know about dismissal of the MJC on 11-11-1988. Thereafter they applied for a certified copy of that order and preferred Civil Revision before this Court. As the said Civil Revision filed was not maintainable under law, the same was withdrawn from this Court and a Misc.Appeal was filed before the District Judge. It is submitted that unless the impugned order is quashed great prejudice will be caused to the Petitioners.
3. The averments of the Petitioners were strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite parties before the Appellate Court. It was stated that the Petitioners had obtained certified copy of the dismissal order dated 11-11-1988 on 17-11-1988, but then preferred the Civil Revision on 8-2-1989 without any explanation whatsoever as to the delay, i.e. from 1 7-11-1988 till 8-2-1989. That apart, after the transfer of the case from the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chatrapur intimation thereof had been duly given to their Counsel which fact was admitted in the MJC petition.
4. If the plea taken by the Petitioners that their advocate did not inform them is accepted, and so also the submission that they came to know about the dismissal order only on 11-11-1988, and obtained certified copy of the said dismissal order on 17-11-1988, the period taken by them from 17-11-1988 till 8-2-1989, i.e. about three months, was not explained.
5. Further according to the Petitioners, as the matter was pending in Civil Revision before this Court, protection under Section 14 of the Limitation Act may be extended to them. Law is well settled that for granting the benefits of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on account of any mistake allegedly committed by the legal adviser, the conduct of the concerned party should be examined. On such examination if it is found that the conduct of the concerned party was palpably negligent then the benefit of the said provision should not be extended and party has to suffer for his conduct or conduct of his Counsel. The presumption of bona fide cannot be ipso facto applicable for condonation of delay, inasmuch as nothing shall be deemed to have been done in good faith which was not done with due care and diligence. Further Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall not apply where earlier proceeding/suit has failed due to negligence or laches. The Section cannot help a party guilty of negligence, laches, inaction or bad faith. A party who proceeding in ignorance of law cannot be said to prosecute with due diligence. In view of such position of law, while considering the question as to whether the Petitioners should be given the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the first thing to be considered is as to whether they acted with due care and diligence and their Counsel took diligent steps. The onus lies on the Petitioners to establish and satisfy said ingredients.
6. In the case at hand, admittedly T.S.No.44 of 1969 was decreed on 31-3-1982. Twenty-two years have passed in the meanwhile. The petition filed under Order 9, Rule 1 3 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree was not prosecuted with due diligence for which the same was dismissed in the year 1985. Instead of filing an appeal in consonance with Order 43(1)( d) CPC a Civil Revision was filed before this Court. The said Civil Revision was withdrawn in the year 1991. Thereafter a Misc.Appeal was preferred before the District Judge. The said Misc.Appeal was also dismissed in the year 1997. The Petitioners thereafter again filed another Civil Revision before this Court challenging the dismissal order passed in the Misc.Appeal in the year 1997. In the year 2003 the Petitioners withdrew the Civil Revision filed by them before this Court and filed this Writ Petition. The aforesaid facts lead to an irresistible conclusion that the Petitioners were never diligent in pursuing the lis. The Appellate Court after considering the entire facts and being satisfied that no explanation had been given by the Petitioners with regard to delay from 17-11-1988 to 8-2-1989 and that the Petitioner never acted with due care and diligence, dismissed the appeal as long back as in the year 1997.
7. After perusing the findings of the Appellate Court, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality therein. Even otherwise the decree had been passed in 1982. The petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC had also been dismissed. The present case is only with regard to restoration of the said petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. This Court finds that it is not a fit case where it can be presumed that the Petitioners had acted diligently and/or there was no deliberate laches on their part. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, dismisses the Writ Petition.