The circumstances that give rise to this second appeal are that Rang Bahadur and Raj Babu sons of Shiv Dayal and Munshilal brought a suit against Hari Singh and Murli in the court of the SDO Behror on 22.6.56 for recovery of possession on the ground that the defendants had wrongfully trespassed upon the land in dispute and hence ought to be ejected therefrom. The trial court after framing necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and granted a decree with costs in favour of the plaintiffs on 14.10.57. One of the defendants Murli went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner and in the memorandum of appeal that was filed by him on 17.10.57 Rang Bahadur and Hari Singh were impleaded as respondents. Nothing was stated in this memorandum as regards the other two, Raj Babu and Munshilal, in whose favour as well a decree was passed by the trial court. It may be observed here that the copy of the decree issued by the trial court to the appellants contains the names of all the three plaintiffs in the title of the suit. In the copy of the judgment issued by the trial court to the appellant contains the names of all the 3 plaintiffs in the title of the suit. In the copy of the judgment issued by the trial court to the appellant the name of Rang Bahadur alone appears in the title though the first line of the judgment starts with the assertion that the suit was instituted by Rang Bahadur and two others. On 20.12.57 application was put up before the lower court by Murli to the effect that as in the judgment of the lower court the name of Rang Bahadur alone appears and as it was known subsequently that Raj Babu and Munshilal were also joint with him as plaintiffs in the suit, permission may be granted to the appellant to join them in the appeal. This application was rejected by the lower appellate court and the appeal was rejected on the ground that as it had become time barred against two of the plaintiffs it should fail in toto. Hence this second appeal before us.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued before us that the appellants counsel was misled by the certified copy of the judgement of the trial court in believing that the suit was filed by Rang Bahadur alone and as such the appellant should not be penalised for the lapse of his advocate as the appellant himself being illiterate did all that could be expected of him by engaging a lawyer. It has been replied by the respondent that the name of all the plaintiffs appeared in the certified copy of the decree and in the first sentence of the certified copy of the judgment as well and if trouble had been taken to read either of them carefully the position would have been perfectly clear. It has also been argued that sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act or sec. 151 C.P.C. has no application to the present case as it is governed by the provisions of Order 41 Rule 20 C P.C.

3. A number of rulings have been cited on behalf of the appellant. They may be discussed briefly as most of them have no real applicability to the present case.

4. In 1958 RRD 67 appeal was filed beyond three days of the Limitation period on the advise of a pleader and benefit of sec. 5 was allowed to the appellant.

5. In A.I.R. 1959 Madhya Pradesh 108 it was observed that though there is no general rule that wrong advise of counsel can always be a sufficient cause for extension of limitation, there may be cases in which a lawyers wrong advice without there being any negligence or carelessness may amount to sufficient cause

6. In 1955 Madras 129 it was observed that the rules of limitation should not be given a strained interpretation which would work hardship on the affected persons Even if a stricter view is taken the delay can be excused under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

7. In 1955 Calcutta page 553 it was observed that once a client proves that he acted bonafide and with reasonable care in appro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document