LALA MATA DIN versus A. NARAYANAN

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 25-08-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

LALA MATA DIN 
v. 
A.NARAVANAN 
August 25, 1969 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND A. N. GROVER, J.J 
Counsel, mistake of-When sufficient ground for condoning delay in 
filing appeal-Practice and procedure-Limitation Act, 1908, s. 5-Punjab 
Courts Act, s. 39(1). 
The appellant's suit against the respondent 
for re7ndition of account 
A 
B 
and other reliefs was valued at Rs. 5,930/- for purposes df court fee and 
C 
juri:>d.iction. The suit was decreed in part and the amount decreed was 
less than the amount at which he stated his tentative valuation. He filed 
an appeal to the Di~trict Court stating the valuation 
for 
purposes of 
appeal at Rs. 4,880/ -. 
The memorandum of appeal showed the valuation 
in the original suit and the court fee paid was the same amount as in the 
trial court. The District Court returned the memorandum of appeal for 
presentation to the proper court because, under s. 39(1) of the Punjab 
Courts Act appeals above the value of Rs. 5 ,000 /- had to filed before the 
D 
High Court. The appeal was filed in the High Court the same day, but 
it was out of time. 
The appellant also filed a revision against the order 
of the uistrict Court. His counsel p]aced reliance on r. 4 in Ch. 3-B of 
Vol. I cf the Rules of the High Court which states that "in a suit for the 
amount found due after taking accounts it is qot the tentative valuation 
of the plaintiff but the amount found to be duo and decreed by the court 
that determines the forum of appeal." The High Court held that there was 
no ground for extending time under s. 5 of the Limitation Act and dis-
E 
missed the appeal and also the revision. In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : '.i'he High Court should have extended time under s. 5 of the 
Limitation Act. [94 A-Bl 
(i) The appellant did not have any underhand motive in filing the 
appeal before the District Court, the filing had to be attributed entirely to 
the ad\ice of his counsel. [93 A-Bl 
F 
There is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itsePf is 
always a sufficient ground for condoning delay. It is always a question 
whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover an 
ulterior purpose. [92 F-Gl 
In the present case the original valuation 
determined th• court of 
lowest denominatian before which the appeal from the suit had to go and 
G 
that forum was the High Court. The counsel seems to have been misled 
by r. 4 in Ch. 3-B of Vol. I of the Rules and Orders of the High Court. 
This rule is applicable ·in a case where the amount decreed is larger than 
the amount for which the original suit was brought. It . .does not apply 
where the amount decreed is below the 
valuation in the original court. 
There is nothing in the case to show that the error committed by the 
counsel was tainted by any mala fide motive. [93 C-F; 94 Al 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2410 
and 2411 of 1966. 
• 
MATA DIN \I. NARAYANAN (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.) 
91 
A 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 20, 1963 
of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in R.F.A. No. 
122-D of 1962. 
Bi~han Narain, K., K. Raizada and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the 
appellant (~n both the appeals). 
B 
A. S. Nambiar, K. R. Nambiar and Lily Thomas, for the res· 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
pond,ent (in both the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. 
This is an appeal against the judg-
ment. dated March 20, 1963, of 
a Division Bench of the 
Punjab High Court dismissing an appeal and a revision filed by 
the present appellant. The appeal arises under the following cir-
cumstances : A suit was filed by the appellant in the Court of 
the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi for three reliefs in respect of a 
business in which the respondent was stated to be the manager 
and also for eject111ent of the respondent from the premises in 
which the business was being carried on. 
The same valuat10n 
was adopted for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The 
valu:ition was divided into three parts : Rs. 4,000/- were taken 
as the valuation for rendition of accounts or arrears of 
rent, 
Rs. 130/- for injunction and Rs. 710/-
for 
ejectment-Total 
R;. 4,840/ -. 
During the hearing of the suit and on objection 
by the defendant, the valuation for 
ejectment was 
raised to 
Rs. 1,800/-. 
It appears that the appellant µaid :he additional 
court-fee but did not amend the plant. The suit was decreed in 
part on May 11, 1961. 
The appellant obtained a decree for 
Rs. 600/- as arrear

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.