Ignorance of law cannot be excused, and a mistake of law by a vakil's clerk is not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal.

RANGANADHAM CHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THE petition is for condoning the delay of 60 days in presenting a pauper appeal. The ground pleaded is that the Advocates Clerk in the lower Court informed the petitioner that the time for filing a second appeal is 90 days.

( 2 ) WE have two Articles in the Limitation Act governing the filing of Second Appeals. In cases where court-fee is paid or payable. Article 156 applies and the period is 90 days while in the case of appeals filed in form a paupers Article 170 prescribes the period as 30 days. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that by mistake the provision of Article 170 was overlooked and that there are decisions which say that a vakils mistake or a vakils clerks mistake is capable of condemnation. Krishna v. Chathappan, ILR 13 Mad 269 is relied on for the observation that the learned Judges "are not prepared to hold that a mistake in law is under no circumstances a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. " The Court was dealing with a case where the party was advised that an appeal lay to the High Court inasmuch as the decree was for a sum exceeding Rs. 5,000. 00. The appeal was filed but was returned by the High Court on the ground that the criterion was the value of the property and not the amount of the decree. The appeal was represented to the District Court but was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation in the view that the delay was caused by an error in the choice of the forum.

( 3 ) THERE were no doubt several cases like ILR 13 Mad 269 where by some mistake the institution of the appeal was in one Court while it should have been in another Court. If it were a suit that was filed in a wrong Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act would have direct application and the delay capable of condensation. The section does not apply in terms to appeals but the Courts have virtually extended the principle of Section 14 to appeals.

( 4 ) SUNDERBAI v. Collector of Belgaum, AIR 1918 PC 135. is a case of mistake in legal advice in choosing the right court. In Ramji Das v. Kumarakalathi, AIR 1932 Mad 142, Anantakrishna Ayyar, J. , was prepared to condone the delay occasioned by a Vakils Clerk mislaying a chalan and consequently delaying the payment of money. The learned Judge observed that it made no difference if the mistake was committed by the lawyer or his clerk. It was not a question of law in respect of which the mistake occurred and the authority has no bearing on the present question. Arura v. Karam Din, AIR 1947 Lah 76 is also a case of a mistake in choosing the correct forum. Kshetramoni Dasi v. Surendra Mohan, AIR 1955 Cal 553, dealt with a delay arising from the advice of a particular lawyer and the Court held that the party had acted bona fide and with reasonable care. An old lady over 80 years was advised by her Vakil wrongly when the question arose as to a revision lay or an appeal. The Court condoned the delay. That would hardly furnish an analogy for the decision of the present case. Gati v. Rachla Kunwar, 29 Ind Cas 1003: (AIR 1915 All 310 (2)) is a direct case dealing with pauper appeals. The Court refused to condone the delay. This High Court in Shangaram Narasimlu v. Jangam Istaliah, 1957-2 Andh WR 557 expressed the view that the negligence of an Agent in filing an appeal is no ground for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

( 5 ) SURENDRA Mohan v. Mohendra Nath, AIR 1932 Cal 589, after an elaborate discussion of the case law on the subject, held that: "there is no authority for the view that a mistake of a legal adviser, however gross and in excusable, if bona fide acted upon by a litigant, will entitle him to the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. "

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner states that there is no direct case whose facts have a similarity to the ground pleaded in the present petition. Here we have the allegation that the Vakils clerk was responsibl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document