Skip to content


Sheikh Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Sheikh Muhammad Fasihullah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All455; 74Ind.Cas.1039
AppellantSheikh Ahmad Husain
RespondentSheikh Muhammad Fasihullah and ors.
Cases ReferredBrij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), section 5 - delay in filing appeal--refusal to extend time--discretion, exercise of--appeal, second--in reference by high court. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......it was returned, apparently on the 18th april, on the ground that the record had been sent to the district judge's record-room, and on that date it was presented in the court of the district judge. the copy was ready on the 20th april and posted on the notice board. it was not taken delivery of until the 25th april which was the last day of limitation. the memorandum of appeal was filed on the 3rd may 1-921, ten days beyond time. the appellant applied to the district judge to extend the time under section 5 of the indian limitation act and his application was accompanied by an affidavit. the le med district judge considered the lavit and came to the conclusion that, if it was true as the appellant said, room the 19th april until the 1st and his karinda were both seized (sic) which.....
Judgment:

1. The facts out which this appeal has arisen are as follows. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur on the 15th of January 1920. After the evidence had been recorded arguments were heard on the 16th December 1920 and judgment was reserved. Judgment was delivered on the 21st March 1921, dismissing the plantiff's suit. We presume that the Court adopted the proper procedure prescribed in Order XX, Rule 1 and gave the parties or their Pleaders notice of the date on which the judgment was to be delivered, but in any case it is admitted by the appellant that he knew, as a matter of fact, that his suit had been dismissed on the 27th March 1921. The decree was not signed by the presiding officer until the 2nd April. No application was put in for a copy until the 13th April. An application was then filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It was returned, apparently on the 18th April, on the ground that the record had been sent to the District Judge's Record-room, and on that date it was presented in the Court of the District Judge. The copy was ready on the 20th April and posted on the Notice Board. It was not taken delivery of until the 25th April which was the last day of limitation. The Memorandum of Appeal was filed on the 3rd May 1-921, ten days beyond time. The appellant applied to the District Judge to extend the time under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and his application was accompanied by an affidavit. The le med District Judge considered the lavit and came to the conclusion that, if it was true as the appellant said, room the 19th April until the 1st and his karinda were both seized (sic) which incapacitated them from doing any business, nevertheless the appellant had shown much laches in attempting to procure the copy of decree which it was essential for him to obtain before he could file his appeal that as he did not apply for the copy until turee days before the period of limitation expired, it was at his own risk that he delayed so long, and the learned District Judge in the exercise of his, discretion refused to extend the period and dismissed the appeal.

2. From this order of dismissal the plaintiff comes, here in second appeal and he argues that although it has been laid down in several rulings of this Court that where the lower Appellate Court exercises a judicial discretion in such matters and decides not to extend the time, this Court will not interfere in second appeal. even if it might have, had it been the lower Appellate Court, taken another view. It has been argued that in this case there really has been no exercise of discretion on the part of the District Judge and reliance has been placed on Budhu v. Dewan 28 Ind. Cas. 265 : 37 A. 267 : 13 A.L.J. 280 and on the recent Privy Council ruling in Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram 42 Ind Cas. 43. In that case it was said that where a Judge purporting to exercise such discretion does under the view that there is no general rule, when in fact there is one which he ought to follow as being binding on him, he misdirects himself as to the law to be applied to the case; he cannot exercise a judicial discretion, and an Appellate Court should either remand the case or exercise, the discretion itself. It seems to us there is no conflict at all between these rulings and having regard to the judgment, of the learned District Judge in this case we think he has exercised a discretion and. dismissed the application on its merits.

3. In this view of the case the appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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