: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.234 OF 2009 Arvind Shrikrishna Ketkar & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Harishchandra Laxman Gudekar & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Rajesh Datar for the Applicants. Mr. S.M. Railkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The order dated 5th January, 2009 passed by the District Judge-1, Khed, Pune has been challenged in the present Civil Revision Application. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed on 1st April, 2009. 2. By the impugned order, the application filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed. The grievance of the applicants herein is that the reasons mentioned in the application filed by the respondent No.1 for condoning the delay in moving the District Court are not sufficient to condone : 2 : the delay. It is submitted that the applicants before the District Court had not given any particulars except for saying that they were given wrong legal advice by their Advocate. It is further submitted that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for condoning the delay and, therefore, the order passed by the District Court should be set aside. 3. I have perused a copy of the application filed by respondent No.1. He has stated that he was advised by his Advocate to challenge the order passed in the Revision Application by preferring an Appeal before the Charity Commissioner. The Appeals were preferred by him, first before the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai and then before the Charity Commissioner, Pune. Thereafter, it was realized that it would be District Court which would have jurisdiction to decide the Appeal and not the Charity Commissioner. In these circumstances, there was a delay in approaching the District Court for filing the Appeal. : 3 : 4. The District Court has considered all the reasons mentioned in the application for condoning the delay and has granted the same by imposing costs of Rs.500/- on respondent No.1. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the District Court in allowing the Appeal. The respondent No.1 was obviously prosecuting a wrong remedy, as advised by his Advocate and, therefore, in my opinion, there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. 5. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. .......