The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act in the context of the appeal, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period and the exercise of discretion by the court for extending the time for preferring the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appeal which the appellant had filed in the Court below was time barred. The facts necessary to be set out for the purposes of this appeal are these : After a good deal of litigation in connexion with an application u/s 105, Ben. Ten Act, the final order was passed on 18th April 1925 by which the Revenue Officer made certain corrections in the record as against the appellant after rejecting an application which the appellant had made for an opportunity to adduce some further evidence. On 18th May 1925, an appeal was taken from this decision of the Revenue Officer to the Special Judge being Special Appeal No. 2 of 1925. This appeal was disposed of by the Special Judge on 31st October 1925. the learned Judge holding that the appeal was not competent as it had been, filed against that portion of the order of the Revenue Officer by which he had rejected the appellant's application for an opportunity to adduce further evidence. He, however, held that an appeal as against the order making the correction would be maintainable and to use his own words, he said "can appeal against the entry now that it is against him". Acting upon this last-mentioned observation of the learned Special Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal on 18th November 1925. It is this appeal that has been dismissed by the learned District Judge upon the ground that it was time barred.

2. In the application which the appellant filed for getting an extension of the time prescribed for the filing of an appeal, the appellant appears to have relied both upon Sections 5 and 14, Lim. Act, though noither of these sections was expressly mentioned in the application. Section 14, no doubt, is not in its terms applicable to the present case, the case being one of appeal. But, as has been pointed out by the Judicial Committee in the case of Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshiram AIR 1917 P.C. 156 the provisions of Section 14 are not altogether irrelevant for the purpose of considering a case u/s 5, Lim. Act. It has been held in that case that, though Section 14 may not be applicable to any particular ease in its terms, if the circumstances mentioned in Section 14 are made out, they would constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5. The present ease, therefore, has got to be looked at from the point of view both of Sections 14 and 5, Lim. Act. Looking at it from the point of view of Section 14, it seems to me that the learned Judge was right in holding that all that the appellant was entitled to got as deduction of the amount of time taken by him in preferring the appeal was the period during which he was prosecuting with diligence the Special Appeal No 2 of 1925. The argument of the appellant that he is entitled to a deduction of the time that was necessary for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the order which he had to obtain in order to prefer Special Appeal No. 2 of 1925 does not appear to me to be well-founded. It was distinctly laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case to which I have already referred that, upon the current of decisions in this country, the period during which a suit or proceeding was prosecuted is the period of which the appellant would be entitled to a deduction. Section 14, however, is not exhaustive of all the circumstances that may go to constitute "sufficient" cause within the meaning of Section 5, Lim. Act. In order to consider the matter from the point of view of Section 5, the finding of the learned Judge would have to be taken into account. The learned Judge held that the appellant acted bona fide in preferring an appeal from that part of the order of the Revenue Officer by which his application for an opportunity to adduce further evidence was rejected and that the said advice that had been given by the pleader to the appellant was also bona fide. In other words, the learned Judge was prepared to hold that there was s