Back
High Court Of Delhi
BANWARILAL AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
L.P.A. 68 of 1972
Decided On : 04/17/1972
LIMITATION ACT - SECTION 5 - CONDONATION OF DELAY - MISTAKE OF COUNSEL - BONA FIDE - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - EXPLANATION - REASONABLE MAN TEST.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant's building was requisitioned by the Government under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Appellant challenged the compensation offered by the Government and obtained a favorable judgment from the High Court. However, the appellant failed to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period due to confusion regarding the appropriate forum for appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's mistake of law regarding the appropriate forum for appeal, as advised by his counsel, did not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The court found that the appellant had ample time to file the appeal in the High Court before the limitation period expired and that his subsequent consultations with multiple lawyers were unnecessary and amounted to inaction or negligence.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's mistake of law regarding the appropriate forum for appeal constituted a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? 2. Whether the appellant's subsequent consultations with multiple lawyers after the limitation period expired amounted to inaction or negligence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a mistake of law by counsel may be taken into account in condoning delay, but it must be a bona fide mistake and not a device to cover up laches or save limitation in an underhand way. 2. The court applied the 'reasonable man test' and found that a reasonable person in the appellant's position would have filed the appeal in the High Court immediately upon becoming aware that the appeal lay there, rather than engaging in unnecessary consultations with multiple lawyers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by time.
Key Points: - The court held that a mistake of law by counsel may be considered but must be bona fide and not a device to cover up laches or save limitation (!) - The decision applies the reasonable man test to determine whether the delay was due to bona fide mistake or not (!) - The appellant’s lack of explanation for days after the explicit expiry of the limitation period led to dismissal of the condonation application and the appeal (!) - The appellant’s multiple consultations with lawyers after learning the correct forum were found to be inaction or negligence, not sufficient cause (!) (!) (!) - The judgment states that once the period expires, the appellant must explain delay day by day; failure to do so weighs against condonation (!) (!)
( 1 ) THE appellant s building was requisitioned by the Government under section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and a sum of Rs. 3212. 50 was offered to the appellant as compensation per month for the use of the building. As the appellant did not agree to accept the said amount, the compensation payable to the appellant was determined by Shri G. R. Luthra (Judge, Small Causes Court, Delhi) acting as arbitrator under section 8 of the Act at Rs. 4,658. 00 per month. In the appeal against the award of the arbitrator, V. D. Misra, J. of this Court increased the amount of compensation to Rs. 6,423. 00 per month under section 11 of the Act. The Government was also ordered to spend a sum of Rs. 6,423. 00 per year for the maintenance and repairs of the building.
( 2 ) LIMITATION for a further appeal was as follows: -
(A) Appeal to a Division Bench of this Court under clause 10 of the Letters Patent - 30 days; and (b) Appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution - 90 days.
( 3 ) THE judgment of the learned Single Judge was delivered on 8-12-1971. The application for a certified copy of the judgment was made on 15-12-1971. The copy was prepared on 13-1-1972 and was obtained by the appellant on 14-1-1972. Excluding the time of 29 days spent in obtaining the certified copy and the day on which the judgment was delivered, the period of limitation of 30 days for filing an appeal in the High Court expired on 7th of February 1972. The appeal in the High Court was filed on 19th of February 1972. The appellant made an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that he had sufficient cause for not prefering it within the prescribed period of limitation. The explanation of the delay given by the appellant was two fold, namely:--
(1) On 8-12-1971 when the learned Single Judge delivered the judgment under appeal, the appellant requested Shri Radhey Mohan Lal, Advocate, to file an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. But the appellant was told by Shri Lal that the appeal lay to the Supreme Court and the period of limitation for filing the appeal there was 90 days. Shri G. S. Vohra, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that there was bona fide doubt whether the appeal lay to the Supreme Court or to the High Court and the mistake of law committed by Shri Lal was sufficient cause for condonation of part of the delay in, filing the appeal. (2) The appellant then tried to engage Shri Tarkunde, Senior Advocate on 1-2-1972 and later entrusted the case to Shri D. V. Patel, Senior Advocate on or about 7-2-1972 to file the appeal to the Supreme Court. Shri Patel opined after a couple of days (that is on 9-2-1972) that the appeal to the Supreme Court did not lie and that the only appropriate remedy was to file the letters patent appeal in the High Court. The time for filing the appeal to the High Court had already expired by this date. In view of the conflict of opinions, the appellant entrusted the papers to Shri Bishen Narain, Senior Advocate, on or about 10-2-1972 who opined on 17-2-1972 that appeal lay to the High Court and not to the Supreme Court. The appellant then again asked Shri R. M. Lal on 18-2-1972 to file an appeal in the High Court but he was still of the view that appeal to the High Court was not competent and, therefore, declined to file the appeal. The appellant then approached Shri G. S. Vohra, Senior Advocate, on 18-2-1972 without delay and Shri Vohra did so on 19-2-1972.
( 4 ) THE first ground explains the delay upto 9-2-1972. Did it amount to "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act till then ? As observed by the Supreme Court in Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953 at 1954 (1) Paragraph 6:
"the law is settled that mistake of counsel may in certain circumstances be taken into account in condoning delay although there is no general propos
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
