1981 Supreme(MP) 498

M. D. Bhatt, J.
Nanda v. Lachhman.
S. A. No. 314 of 1976 (I); Decided on 9-9-1981

Headnote:(1) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- sufficient cause -- what is -- mere ignorance of law-- not a sufficient cause.

        (2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O.22, Rr. 4 and 9 -- appeal abated under R.4 sufficient cause for setting aside abatement-what is -- mere ignorance of law does not constitute sufficient cause.

        The learned counsel for the appellants defendants, relying on AIR 1979 Calcutta 353 Abdul Latiff v. Fazai Ali, has urged before me that the delay on the part of appellants defendants in filing the application under rules 4 & 9 of Order 22 CPC was bona fide inasmuch as, the appellants being village folk, were ignorant about the legal procedure as to whether or not, the LRS are necessarily to be brought on record, on the death of one of the parties.

        Held: It may, at first be mentioned that all the four applications which have been filed on the appellants-side, have been moved only by one of the appellants i. e. the appellant-defendant Nandram. As for the cause of delay, it has been mentioned in Para 2 and 3 of his application under Order 22 rule 9 CPC that although the respondent plaintiff Badrilal had died 5 to 6 years back, leaving behind him his certain LRS. he himself, being a village agriculturist, had no knowledge regarding the legal position that LRS of the deceased are necessarily to be brought on record of the case, and only when he received his counsels letter dated 12-8-81 on 17-8 ·81 he contacted his counsel and on his advice, filed the requisite applications in the matter of the LRS. It is, therefore, urged by the said appellant defendant Nandram and so also by the appellants learned counsel that the delay was bonafide, and as such, there was just and sufficient cause for condoing the delay in the matter of setting aside the abatement and also in the matter of bringing the LRS on record in time. In AIR 1964 SC 215 Union of India v. Ram Charan, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down certain guidelines for determining what is "Sufficient Cause" for purposes of rule 9 order 22 CPC. There is a consistent view of certain High Courts, contrary to the one of the Calcutta High Court which has been cited before me, to the effect that mere ignorance of law without anything more, will not constitute sufficient cause JLR ( 195) Rajasthan 315 (DB) Hukum Singh v. Baanwar Singh 1954 Madhaya Bharat Law Journal 1454 (H. C. R.) Mohanlal v. Surajmal & AIR 1929 Nagpur 74 Nandu v. Bhuwanoo, are clear authorities for the said view which I am inclined to follow in the present circumstances of the case, Calcutta case (supre) is one, which related to unsophisticated illiterate village women Li"Ving in Pardah (appellants No.3 and 4 ) and to two other (appellant No. 1 and 2) who were semi literate villagers Li"Ving in the extreme interior part of the District 24 Parganas. Such does not appear to be the case here. It has simply been stated in the instant case that the appellant-defendant Nandram was a village agriculturist. It is nowhere stated that he was illiterate or semi literate. Besides, apart from this appellant defendant Nandram, there, were three other appellants defendants regarding whom, nothing has been stated as to whether they were literate or not, and further whether, these appellants were also equally ignorant about the legal position in the matter of bringing the LRS, on record, of the deceased respondent plaintiff. From the applications which have been filed, one thing is clear that the appellants had full knowledge about the death of the respondent plaintiff. No.3 Badrilal about 5 to 6 years when he had actually died. The factum of their such knowledge is, thus not a matter of any controversy. The only controversy raised by the appellants is that the appellant defendant Nandram had no knowledge of the legal position that the LRS of the deceased party arc to be brought on record. These appellants had, as their counsel, a very senior and reputed lawyer. It does not stand to reason that the appellants could not have contacted their counsel any time during all these years of the pending appeals. The mere circumstances that the appellants were ignorant of law regarding the bringing of LRS of the deceased, on record, by itself, alone cannot be just and sufficient cause for condoning the delay. If such bare circumstance is accepted on its face value, as just and sufficient cause for condoning the delay, then the whole scheme of the various rules of Order 22 CPC would be frustrated and rendered valueless, and there would hardly be a suit or appeal where the effect of abatement would have any play of any practical significance, inasmuch as any defaulting party whatsoever, would then, be able to come forward with the plea that he was unable to move the necessary applications within the prescribed time, for bringing the LRS on record or for setting aside the abatement because of his ignorance of law.

        Pure and simple ignorance of law, by itself, cannot be an excuse and justification, muchless sufficient justification for condoning the delay. As such, the appellants applications under Order 22 rule 9 and so also under Order 22, rule 4 and section 5 of the Limitation Act, deserve to be outright rejected. AIR 1979 Cal. 353 distinguished; AIR 1964 SC 215 referred to ILR 1954 Raj. 351, 1954 MBLJ 1454 (HCR), AIR 1929 Nag. 74 relied on.Appeal dismissed as abated.