Skip to content


Kishan Lal and anr. Vs. Tika and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All719; 101Ind.Cas.750
AppellantKishan Lal and anr.
RespondentTika and anr.
Excerpt:
- - as far as he was concerned, it was clearly a bona fide mistake and he has throughout prosecuted his case with diligence. it is not, in our opinion, improper to apply the provisions of section 14, limitation act, to a case of this kind although it is an appeal, and in our opinion we are justified in holding that this was a bona fide mistake, that the appellant throughout acted in good faith and that his appeal should be heard......what must have been a mistake of his counsel. as far as he was concerned, it was clearly a bona fide mistake and he has throughout prosecuted his case with diligence. it is not, in our opinion, improper to apply the provisions of section 14, limitation act, to a case of this kind although it is an appeal, and in our opinion we are justified in holding that this was a bona fide mistake, that the appellant throughout acted in good faith and that his appeal should be heard. there is an authority for this view in the ruling in maqbul ahmad v. murla [1916] 14 a.l.j. 212 and we believe that we are acting in accordance with the principles laid down by their lordships of the privy council in the case of brij inder singh v. kanshi ram a.i.r. 1917 p.c. 156. 2. we, therefore, allow this appeal.....
Judgment:

Pullan, J.

1. The lower Court threw out this appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The suit relates to the tahsil of Sikandrabad which is situated in the Bulandshahr District, but was up to the year 1921 in the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Meerut. This suit was decreed on the 28th November 1923, and on the 10th January 1924 an appeal was preferred in the Court of the District Judge of Meerut. The Munsarim of that Court accepted the appeal and it was made over to an Additional Judge for trial. Consequently it was not until 10th March that it was discovered that the appeal should have been filed in the Court of the District Judge of Bulandshahr. The appeal was then returned to the plaintiff, who took it without delay to the proper Court. We have to consider whether in a case of this kind the appellant should be punished for what must have been a mistake of his counsel. As far as he was concerned, it was clearly a bona fide mistake and he has throughout prosecuted his case with diligence. It is not, in our opinion, improper to apply the provisions of Section 14, Limitation Act, to a case of this kind although it is an appeal, and in our opinion we are justified in holding that this was a bona fide mistake, that the appellant throughout acted in good faith and that his appeal should be heard. There is an authority for this view in the ruling in Maqbul Ahmad v. Murla [1916] 14 A.L.J. 212 and we believe that we are acting in accordance with the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 156.

2. We, therefore, allow this appeal and remand the case to the lower appellate Court for decision on the merits.

3. The costs will follow the result.


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