CMPMO No.110 of 2008. 30.12.2008 Present: Pt.Om Parkash, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 4. CMPMO No.110 of 2008. Heard. It is undisputed before me that the application for restoration of the revision petition was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The impugned order does not show that the Financial Commissioner(Appeals) has considered this application. No order has been passed by him accepting or rejecting the application. Even the observations made in the order that restoration is sought by apportioning blame on the junior counsel, cannot be accepted. The Financial Commissioner was well advised to have referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rafiq and Another vs. Munshilal and Another, AIR 1981 SC 1400, Goswami Krishna Murarilal Sharma vs. Dhan Prakash and Others, (1981)4 SCC 574, Smt. Lachi Tewari and Others vs. Director of Land Records and Others, AIR 1984 SC 41 and Sushila Narahari and Others vs. Nandakumar and Another, (1996)5 SCC 529 and dealt with the case in accordance with law. If the established facts of the case are such that the fault was that of the counsel, surely the litigant could not be visited with penal consequences. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. The order dated 4.12.2007 is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued that the Financial Commissioner(Appeals) shall reconsider the application afresh in accordance with law after giving both parties an opportunity of establishing their respective case. CMPMO No.110 of 2008. (2) Parties to appear before the Financial Commissioner(Appeals) on 3rd March, 2009. No order as to costs. December 30, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.