The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of acting with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal, as highlighted in the principles established in Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram, Rajendra Bahadur v. Rajeshwara Bale, and Lala Meta Din v. A. Narayanan.

1. This is an application by the appellant under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of not filing the appeal within the prescribed period and to admit the same as there is sufficient ground for not preferring it within the time.

2. The appellant is the first defendant in a suit which was filed for recovery of money due under a simple mortgage. The first defendant contended, among other things, that the mortgage was executed for amounts that would be found due to the plaintiff on account of forward contracts in coconut oil carried on between the parties, that the said transactions were illegal, that the plaintiff was not, therefore, entitled to recover any amount under the mortgage, that these transactions continued between the parties after the execution of the mortgage, and that the first defendant was in any event entitled to get credit for the amounts due to him on account of subsequent transactions. In his evidence, he stated that he had paid to the plaintiff is the account of his father Rs. 5,651/- from 20 31952 till 16 31956, and Rs. 21,381.5.7 in his own account from 23 41952 till 29 61957, that all these payments are seen in the plaintiff's books of account, which were produced before the Court, that all the payments had been made in cash and by cheques, that be had filed statements in Court showing the said payments, and that he was entitled to get credit for the same. The trial court held that the dealings between the parties in coconut oil were wagering contracts, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only the price of copra sold to the first defendant after deducting the payments which the first defendant was found to have made to the plaintiff. Accordingly the trial court gave a decree for the value of the copra after deducting therefrom the subsequent payments made by the first defendant, which the trial court fixed at Rs. 4,549.10 on the basis of Ext. P-15 which is an English translation of the relevant folio of the plaintiff's ledger for the year 1951-52.

3. Eight days after the first defendant obtained certified copies of the judgment and the decree, he made an application in the trial court for review of the judgment and decree on the ground that in the light of the findings the trial court should have given him credit not only for Rs. 4,549.10 but also for the two amounts of Rs. 6,651/- and Rs. 21,381.5.7, which are credited in the plaintiff's books of account as deposed by the first defendant, and that the omission to take into account these two sums and give credit for the same was an error on the face of the record. The review application also stated that the first defendant's advocate had prepared statements showing the particulars of the amounts credited in the plaintiff's books, that he deposed in his evidence that the said statements had been filed in court on the impression that his advocate had done so, but by oversight the advocate had not actually filed them, and that if the said statements had been filed, the above error would not have perhaps occurred. The first defendant's advocate also filed an affidavit confessing his mistake in not filing the above statements in court, and produced them along with the review application. It is obvious from the deposition of the first defendant that himself and his advocate proceeded on the 'assumption that the said statements had been produced in Court. The trial court accepted the first defendant's case and allowed the review application.

4. The plaintiff filed an appeal from the order of the trial Court. This Court took the view that the facts alleged by the first defendant did not constitute proper ground for review, and that, in so far as the plaintiff's books of account had not been duly proved by producing translations of the relevant folios, it was not open for the trial court to rely on the statements produced by the first defendant on the basis of the entries in the said books. Accordingly the appeal was allowed b