A mistake due to negligence or want of reasonable skill cannot be considered to fall within the definition of good faith as defined in the Limitation Act.

1. The appellants had filed a suit for a declaration claiming themselves to be exclusive owners of the business run in the name of Messrs Ralla Ram Siri Ram. This suit was contested by the respondent, Madan Mohan Lal, who propounded a will and claimed his share in the business of that firm. It may be stated at this stage that plaintiff No. 1 Brij Bhushan is the brother of respondent Madan Mohan Lal while plaintiff No. 2 Lachhmi Devi and Plaintiff No. 3 Tara Wati are the mother and sister respectively of the two brothers. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs made an application under rule 1 of order 40 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for the appointment of a receiver of the business of the firm of Messrs Ralla Ram Siri Ram and also of the other property so that their share of the property and profits could be preserved. This application was contested by the respondent and by order dated 22nd October, 1970 the subordinate Judge First Class, Ambala, declined to appoint a receiver but appointed a local commissioner for the limited purpose of preparing an inventory of the properties mentioned in the suit together with that of the assets of the firm of Messrs Ralla Ram Siri Ram and for signing the bahis of the firm at conspicuous places. The bahis were ordered to be kept in sealed boxes in the Court for a period of three months in the first instance. The parties were directed to inspect the bahis in the Court during this period. Being aggrieved against the order by which the appointment of a receiver was declined, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court.

2. On behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection has been raised that the appeal is time-barred. As this fact is not disputed on behalf of the appellants it is prayed that the delay occasioned in filing the appeal be condoned as this was caused by the bona fide mistake of their counsel, Shri Gian Chand Garg, who had advised that the appeal lay to the Court of the District Judge The facts necessary for the decision of this point are not in dispute. After obtaining a copy of the impugned order the appellants filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Ambala within a period of limitation. This appeal was disposed of on 5th April 1971 when it was returned for presentation to the High Court. On 6th April 1971 the appeal was filed in this court as the copy of the order passed by the Additional District Judge could not be obtained till late in the evening on 5th April 1971. It is not challenged that if the time spent in prosecuting the appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge is not taken into consideration in the computation of the period of limitation the appeal would be within time.

3. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that if a counsel does not act in good faith, i.e., with due care aid caution and commits a mistake due to his negligence or want of reasonable skill a litigant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Support for this contention is sought from Mrs. J. H. Nelson V/s. Thakur Singh 1967-69 PunLR 64, wherein the following observations were made:-

-

"The averment that under legal advice and bona fide belief the tenant thought that only an appeal lay against the ex parte order was, in my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of this case wholly futile. There was no disclosure made in the application as to which legal adviser had given the said advice. In a case of the present type, it was incumbent on the tenant to give full particulars of the legal advice and if possible to support it by an affidavit of the legal adviser that he had given such advice after due care and attention. Mere broad and general plea that the tenant had under legal advice and bona fide belief been prosecuting with the due diligence another proceeding for getting the ex parte order set aside is, in my opinion, not enough on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Due diligence and caution are,