LexRAMLAL, MOTILAL AND CHHOTELAL versus REWA COALFIELDS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961
Mag, 4
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
RAMLAL, MOTILAL AND CHHOTELAL
v.
REWA COALFIELDS LTD.
(P. B. GA,JENDRAGADKAR AND K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
' Limitation-Oondoniition of delay in filing appeal-Period
for which delay to be explained-Indian Limitation Act, 1908
(Act IX of 1908) s. 5.
In an application under s.5 of the Indian Limitation
Act for condonation of one day's delay in filing an appeal, the
question arose whether the appellant had to explain his con-
duct during the whole period prescribed for filing the appeal
or he has to explain the delay between the last day for filing
the appeal and the date on which the appeal was actually
filed. Section 5 of the Limitation Act lays down that an appeal
may be admitted after the period of limitation if the appellant
shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal "within
such period".
H•ld,
that it would lie irrelevant to invoke general
considerations such as diligence of the appellant in construing
the words of s.5.
1~he expression "'within such period" docs
not mean during such period and the failure of the appellant
to account for his non-diligence during the whole period of
limitation docs not disqualify him from praying for condonation
of delay.
In showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay
the appellant has to explain the whole of the delay covered by
the period between the last day of limitation and the date on
which the appeal was actually filed,
Krishnav. Ohattappan,
(1890) I.L.R. 13 Mad. 267,
referred to.
KaraUcharan Sarma v. Apurbakrishna Bajpeyi, ( 1931)
I.L.R. 53 Cal. 549, approved.
Kedarnath v. Zumberlal A.LR. 1916 Nag. 39 and Jahar
Mal v, G. M. Pritchard A.I.R. 1919 Pat. 503, disapproved.
Ram Narain Joshi v. Parmeshwar Narain Mehta {1902)
L. R. 30 I.A. 20, not applicable.
Indat Singh v: Kanshi Ram (1917) L. R. 44 I. A. 218,
referred to.
CIVIL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 276of1958.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
August 6, 19!if\, oi the Judicial Commissioner's
court, at Rewa, V. P. in First Civil Appeal No. 16
of 1955.
,-
1
\ ·
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
763
S. N. Andfoy, llameshwar Nath and P.L. Vofwa,
for the appellants.
D. N. i'l6lhak,
N. llfaltalinyier and B. C.
JJ.isra, for the respondent..
1961. May 4. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1961
Ramlal, Mali/al
and CliJwtelal
v.
Rewa Coalfield
Ltd.
GA-JBNl>llAGAIJKAH, J.-The short
question
Gajertdragait/ear
which falls to be cmrnidf'recl in this appeal relates tu
J.
the construct.ion of s. u of the Indian Limitation Act
JX of 1908. It arises in this way. Tile respondent
ltewa Coalfields Limited is a registered company
whose coal-mines arc situated at Burhar and Uma-
rm.
Its registered uilicc is at Calcutta. The appol-
htut
is a firm, Chaurasia Lim0stonc Company,
8atua, Vindhya Pmdesh, by name and tho three
Lrothors Hamfal, Mutilal am! Chlwtelal are its
partnern.
'.L'lw appclhmt prepares and deals in
limestone ;it Mttihar aud Satua and fur the use in
thefr limc-kil11s it purohased coal from the respun-
<Lent's coal-miucs at Umaria by means of iiermits
issued tu it by Coal Commissioner Calcutta. Aceording
to respondent's case the appellant purchased from it
3,307 tuns of coal at the rate of Rs. 14-!J-O per
ton between January 1952, and March 1953.
The
price for this coal was Rs. 48, 158-4-0. Since the
appellant did nut pay the priuc due from it the
respumleut filed the present suit in tho Court of
the District J"udge, Umaria, and claimed a decree
for lts. 52,51'!-14-0 including inkrest aeerned due
on the amount until the date of the suit.
A sulistantial part of the respondent's claim
was disputed liy the appella,nt. It was urged by
the appellant in its written statement that the
amount claimed by the respondent had been arbi-
trarily calculated and that for a substantial part of
the coal purchased by the appellant from the
respondent due price had been paid. The appellant
pleaded that for some time past it had stopped
purchasing coal from the respondent and it was
1981
){tzmlal, Molifol
and Chhutdul
v.
Rewu .Uualjield
Ltd.
Gaje,.dragadkur
J,
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
olitaining its ;;upplies from J\tkssrs Sood Broth!'rs,
C:tl\tutta, to whom pa~·ments for the coal supply
lu1rl h<><m duly made. Tho 11ppellant admitted its
!iability to pay Rs.7,496-ll-O aml it expressed
its readiness and willingness to pay the said
amount.
Ou tlwso pExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.