Legal IQ

Quick Referencer for Judicial Service

Q. ‘A’ hands over the papers of appeal to his counsel ‘B’ in the morning on the last day of filing the appeal in order to file the same. ‘B’ could not look into the papers till the evening of the day because of the pressure of urgent work. Is the mistake of ‘B’ a sufficient cause to condone the delay and extend the period of limitation? Give reasons.

Haryana Judicial Service Exam. 1995 (II)

Ans: Yes, mistake of B’ is sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 for extending the period of limitation—Kalicharan v. Apurba, 48 Cal 549.

Reasons: It is well settled that bona fide mistake of the lawyer/counsel is a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5, for extending the period of limitation or condoning the delay in filing of application or appeal.

Facts of this problem are similar to facts of Kalicharan v. Apurba, referred above. In this case Calcutta High Court held that the mistake of counsel is bona fide and bona fide mistake of a lawyer is a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 for extending the period of limitation.

On the basis of above discussions it is clear that in the given problem mistake of ‘B’ is a sufficient cause to condon the delay in filing the appeal and to extend the period of limitation prescribed by Limitation Act as the mistake of ‘B’ is bona fide.
Note: In Haryana Judicial Service Exam. 1995 (II) this problem was asked in following words—“’Y’ the appellant handed over same papers to his Advocate ‘K’ in the morning of the last day for filling the appeal. Through pressure of urgent work the Advocate did not look into the papers till the evening of that day when he found that that was the last day. The appeal was filed next day. Is there sufficient cause to grant the appellant an extension of a day under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? Decide with the help of case-law.”

Source: Kishor Prasad, Problems & Solutions on Civil Law

Leave a Comment