Skip to content


Chittarmal Vs. Sheo NaraIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 318 of 1967
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)174
AppellantChittarmal
RespondentSheo NaraIn and ors.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
limitation act - section 5--condonation of delay--villager ignorant about bringing legal representatives on record--held, it is no ground for condonation of delay. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act,..........came up for hearing before this court on. 15 10 1975. on that day laxmi narain son of defendant sheo narain moved an application that sheo narain had died about three years ago and since no legal representatives of sbeo narain had died about three years ago and since no legal representatives of sheo narain were brought on record, the appeal was liable to be dismissed as having abated. laxmi narain subsequently filed on affidavit wherein he mentioned that his father sheo narain died in the month of july, 1971. on. 2510 75 an application for setting aside the abatement was moved by chhitarmal under the provisions of rule 4 and 9 of order 22 of the code of civil procedure. along with this application another application was filed under section 5 of the limitation act for condonation of.....
Judgment:

S.N. Modi, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration arid mandatory injunction.

2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail Suffice it to say that the appellant Chhitarmal and respondent No. 3 Kanhiya Lal filed a suit is the court of Munsif, Laxmangarh (District Alwar) for declaration and mandatory injunction against Sbeo Narain. One Bhagwan Sahai was also impleaded as proforma defendant. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on 26th April, 1965. The plaintiff appellant preferred an appeal but the some was dismissed by the learned Sanior Civil Judge Alwar on 7tb April, 1967. Hence this second appeal.

2. This case came up for hearing before this Court On. 15 10 1975. On that day Laxmi Narain son of defendant Sheo Narain moved an application that Sheo Narain had died about three years ago and since no legal representatives of Sbeo Narain had died about three years ago and since no legal representatives of Sheo Narain were brought on record, the appeal was liable to be dismissed as having abated. Laxmi Narain subsequently filed on affidavit wherein he mentioned that his father Sheo Narain died in the month of July, 1971. On. 2510 75 an application for setting aside the abatement was moved by Chhitarmal under the provisions of Rule 4 and 9 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Along with this application another application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. It is the common ground between the parties that if the delay is not condoned, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as having abated.

4. The only ground which the appellant mentioned in his application for condonation of delay was that he being a villager and a simple man never knew that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have to be brought on record within 90 days. In other words, the appellant wants this Courts to give him benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation. Act on account of his ignorance of law. The question that arises is other the ignorance of law on the part of a party is a sufficient reason for extending the period of limitation It has beers bed in I.L.R. (1954) 4, Rajasthan page 351 that delay cannot be excused under Section 5 of the Limitation Act merely on the plea of ignorance of law. Such a plea cannot have good basis to condone the breach of law. This is a Division Bench decision of this Court and is binding on me.

5. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed with the result that the appeal also fails as having abated. In the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to Dear their own costs of this Court.


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