Skip to content


Kandaswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. P. Arunachala Chetti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad462
AppellantKandaswami Mudaliar and ors.
RespondentP. Arunachala Chetti and ors.
Cases Referred and Vaithinatha Aiyar v. Govindasawmi Udayar A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....is no reason to disbelieve his statement that he had the money on 20th july. the delay till 24th july was due to the vakil's earlier error in calculation and therefore we must reject respondent's contention that this was not really the case. there is considerable authority in the indian courts for the proposition that delay caused by the mistake of the party's vakil is sufficient cause for excusing delay under section 5 of the limitation act; vide sunderabai v. the collector of belgaum a.i.r. 1918 p.c. 135. bakhal chandra ghosh v. ashutosh ghosh (1913) 17 c.w.n. 807 and vaithinatha aiyar v. govindasawmi udayar a.i.r. 1921 mad. 650; and respondents' vakil does not dispute it. the delay is therefore excused, but petitioners must pay the costs of this application.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. From the affidavits filed, we think that it has been established that the delay in filing the appeal was really due to the careless arithmetical mistake of the appellant's vakil. The party had not any opportunity of correcting this mistake in time; for, he mainly relies on his vakil's assertion that the appeal need not be filed until August. It would appear that the party had not the money with him, when he first went to the vakil on 1st July; but there is no reason to disbelieve his statement that he had the money on 20th July. The delay till 24th July was due to the vakil's earlier error in calculation and therefore we must reject respondent's contention that this was not really the case. There is considerable authority in the Indian Courts for the proposition that delay caused by the mistake of the party's vakil is sufficient cause for excusing delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; vide Sunderabai v. The Collector of Belgaum A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 135. Bakhal Chandra Ghosh v. Ashutosh Ghosh (1913) 17 C.W.N. 807 and Vaithinatha Aiyar v. Govindasawmi Udayar A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 650; and respondents' vakil does not dispute it. The delay is therefore excused, but petitioners must pay the costs of this application.


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