9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (11) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the valuation of the original suit mentioned above, the appeal lay to the High Court. The said objection was ordered to be put up for orders on 22-1-1975. On that date the present appellant moved an application No. 160, asking for 15 days' time for replying to that objection. The case was adjourned to 6-12-1975 on which date again the Court passed an order directing the objection 15 (c) to be put up on 3-1-1976. It appears that on that date, respondent No. 3 (a co-defendant) also filed an objection saying that the Court in which the appeal had been filed was possessed of jurisdiction to hear the same and the appeal was not required to be filed in the High Court. Thereafter the case was taken up again on 7-2-1976 on which date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of Section 14 or not. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that any appeal etc. may be admitted after the prescribed period of limitation if the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not referring the appeal within such period. On the other hand, Section 14 the Limitation Act is to the effect that in computing the period of limitation for any suit etc., the time during which the plaintiff had been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant, shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inforced when the definition of the term 'good-faith' contained in Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act is taken into consideration. The definition of 'Good faith' says 'Nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. This makes it clear that a reckless disregard of this unambiguous provisions of law cannot be said to come within the definition of 'Good faith.' The case law has, in its expanding orbit, embraced in appropriate cases even the mistakes honestly committed by a counsel or other agent of the parties. Still the authorities are circumspect in laying down that it is not every degree of negligence which would be condoned by the application of Section 14 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mofussil lawyer in filing the substitution application as sufficient cause for condoning the delay in presenting the application. It was held by the Bench that the cause established was in the nature of an honest mistake due to forgetfulness or over sight. Still, however, the rule was stated as not so elastic as to condone every act of negligence. It is observed by Agarwala, J. as follows (at p. 370 of All LJ): It is not every negligence that would be condoned. Only that species of negligence may be considered as amounting to sufficient cause which any reasonable person situated in the position of the agent may in all honesty commit. 5. In short, the rule appears to be that where any mistake with regard to the forum of presenting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, one of the counsel appearing for the defendant in the court below has filed his own affidavit in which there is not a whisper to the effect that he committed any inadvertent error in filing the appeal before the District Judge or that he entertained any doubt with regard to the forum for filing the appeal. It is stated in that affidavit that Sri M. L. Khatri Advocate, was the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant and Sri Verma was assisting Sri Khatri in the case and Sri A. K, Bajaj a junior lawyer was also attached to the office of Sri Khatri and had joined in signing the Vakalatnama. The affidavit proceeds to add that the memo of appeal was dictated by Sri Khatri, it was prepared through his office and presented on Sri Kh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... faith. His conduct falls short of the standard of due. care and attention attributed to an ordinary and prudent person. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is true that Section 14 in terms applies to suits and not to appeals but in substance the same principle may be applied. That is why the application has been made under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Even for successfully invoking the benefit of Section 5, the appellant has to make out sufficient cause and therefore, reckless or grossly negligent conduct of the appellant would be inconsistent with such sufficient cause. In fact, the Division Bench case of this Court in Lala Hanuman Das v. Prithvi Nath (19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
