SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(AP) 7

UMAMAHESWARAM, S.QAMAR HASSAN
Thumu Govardhana Rao – Appellant
Versus
Bolineni Ramachandraiah – Respondent


( 1 ) THE only question that arises for decision in this application is whether, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is not open to this court to excuse the delay in filing the pauper application on the ground that the 1st petitioner acted bona fide on the advice of his Advocate at Guntur. The period prescribed for filing a regular appeal before the High Court is 90 days, while the period prescribed for filing a pauper appeal is 30 days. The learned Advocate, who was not aware that in regard to a pauper appeal there is a shorter period of limitation, advised the 1st petitioner that he might fife an appeal within 90 days. When the 1st petitioner came to Hyderabad, he was informed by his Advocate Sri Babulu Reddy that the period of limitation was 30 days. So, he filed an application to excuse the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that if the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay might be excused. If really, the applicant acted bona fide on the advice of his advocate, there can be no doubt that such delay should be
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top