CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) IN our opinion, this Rule should be made absolute. The petitioner wanted to take steps against art order passed in a partition suit by which defendant No. 3 was allowed to purchase her own share and that of defendant No. 1. She was advised that an application in revision would lie to this Court and under that impression she came and interviewed Mr. Janah with the necessary papers. Mr. Janah, who is appearing for the petitioner in this Rule, informed her that she had been mis-advised and that the order against which she wanted to take steps was an appealable order and that such an appeal would fie before the learned District Judge. The petitioner then went back and filed her appeal, but when she did so eleven days had already expired from the last day or limitation.

( 2 ) THE petitioner made an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, as she was bound to do and the sufficient cause relied upon by her was that she had acted bona fide throughout but that she had been misled by the wrong advice given to her by her lawyer. The learned District Judge has rejected this plea on the ground that whether an order made under the Partition Act was or was not appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document