Skip to content


Ram Sewak and anr. Vs. Smt. Peare and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 6 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1957All772
ActsLimitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5
AppellantRam Sewak and anr.
RespondentSmt. Peare and anr.
Appellant AdvocateH.D. Srivastava and ;Umesh Chandra, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateR.B. Bisaria, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
limitation - condonation of delay - section 5 of limitation act, 1908 - without making enquiry - believed high court is closed for general election - filed second appeal beyond time - negligence - held, not sufficient cause for delay. - .....was ready for delivery on 12-12-1956. this period had to be excluded in the computation of the period of limitation and the last date on which the appeal could have been filed was 28-2-1957.the appeal was, however, filed on 9-3-1957 and the ground given for not filing the appeal earlier was that the appellant was under the mistaken belief that as the civil courts of unnao had been closed upto the 10th of march, 1957 in connection with the general elections the high court must also be closed on those days. the appellant admittedly did not inquire about the holidays in the high court from anybody and he has in his affidavit mentioned that he relied on his own belief. it is a matter of common knowledge that the list of holidays in the civil courts 'and the high court is not the same and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Randhir Singh, J.

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning delay in the institution of this second appeal. It is conceded that the period of 90 days would have normally expired on 6-2-1957. The appellant had, however, applied for a copy of the judgment of the lower appellate Court on 22-11-1956 and the copy was ready for delivery on 12-12-1956. This period had to be excluded in the computation of the period of limitation and the last date on which the appeal could have been filed was 28-2-1957.

The appeal was, however, filed on 9-3-1957 and the ground given for not filing the appeal earlier was that the appellant was under the mistaken belief that as the civil Courts of Unnao had been closed upto the 10th of March, 1957 in connection with the general elections the High Court must also be closed on those days. The appellant admittedly did not inquire about the holidays in the High Court from anybody and he has in his affidavit mentioned that he relied on his own belief. It is a matter of common knowledge that the list of holidays in the civil Courts 'and the High Court is not the same and if the applicant did not make any inquiries and chose to depend on his own erroneous belief this cannot be held to be a 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

In order to establish his bona fides a person has to establish that he had taken due care and, caution and if it appears that the belief which he entertained was due to his inaction or negligence this cannot be held to be a sufficient ground even though the belief may be a bona fide belief. It was the duty of the applicant to have made inquiries if the High Court was closed from the 1st to the 9th of March and if he had received a wrong information from some quarter which was expected to have information about it the applicant could perhaps have argued that the belief engendered in him was the outcome of pro-per inquiries. In the absence of any such inquiries the applicant cannot take advantage of his own erroneous belief. The delay cannot, therefore, be condoned.

2. The appeal is, therefore, rejected as barred by time.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //