1902 (12) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to hear the appeal.
2. Admission of appeal out of time.
3. Mistakes made by the appellant or his advisers and their consequences.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court to hear the appeal:
The appellant filed two suits concerning the same property in the Subordinate Judge's Court. After the dismissal of both suits, an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge, which lacked jurisdiction due to undervaluation. A petition was later made to transfer the appeal to the High Court, which was granted. However, during the subsequent hearing, it was held that the High Court also lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

2. Admission of appeal out of time:
The appellant attempted to admit the memorandum of appeal in the High Court after the expiration of the appeal period. The Division Bench considered the delay and the appellant's failure to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The judges concluded that the appellant did not have a valid reason for not presenting the appeal on time, leading to the discharge of the order to admit the appeal out of time.

3. Mistakes made by the appellant or his advisers and their consequences:
The appellant's initial undervaluation of the appeal, leading to jurisdictional issues, and the subsequent delay in admitting the appeal out of time were attributed to mistakes made by the appellant or his advisers. Despite arguments for leniency due to the hardship faced by the appellant, the court held that interference was not warranted unless it was established that the refusal to admit the appeal out of time was incorrect. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of accountability for the delay and the absence of evidence to challenge the previous decisions.

In conclusion, the Privy Council dismissed the appeal, stating that interference was not justified unless it could be proven that the refusal to admit the appeal out of time was erroneous. The court highlighted the appellant's responsibility for the delay and the absence of sufficient cause for the delays, ultimately upholding the previous decisions regarding jurisdiction and admission of the appeal.