LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL versus ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
8i4
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY & ORS.
December 14, 1971
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.)
Lilnitcuiun Act, 1963, s. 5-'Su:fficient cc.:use' and 'necessary stieps',
'"'P'' of-Party acting on advice of legal adviser-If sufficient cause.
B
In certain land acquisition references the District Judge passed an
order in 1963 awarding compensation to be paid by the appellant to the
C
first respondent.
Wi1en the first respondent levied execution the appel-
lant filed objections on August 27, 1964, under s. 47, Civil Procedure
Code, but the objection petitions were dismissed in January 1965.
On
March 4, 1965, it was discovered that no appeal was filed against the
.arder of the district judge awarding compensation.
Thereafter the appel-
lant took dilil!llnt and active steps to challenge the de~sion of the district
judge. On the advice of the legal adviser an application under Art. 227
was filed on May 17, 1965 and on July 4. 1965 appeals were filed
g.
against the decision of the district judge with an application under s. 5
ot' the Limitation Act, 1963, praying that the delay in filing the appeal
may he excused. In that application after stating the above facts it was
also overred that the delay was caused by the omission and neglect of
the Government Pleader to advise the appellant.
The High Court held
that the appellant had not sufficiently explained the delay during the
period between August 27, 1964 ""d July 3, 1965 but gave no reasons
for its conclusion.
E
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : It is not possible to lay down precisely as to what facts or
matters WGuld <Pnstitute 'sufficient cause' under s. 5 of the Limitation
Act.
But those words should be liberally construed so as to advance
substantial justice when no negligence or any inaction ot want of bona
fides is imputable tG a party; that is, th., delay in filing an appeal should
not have been for reasons which indicate the party's negligence in not
taking necessary steps which he could have or should have taken. · What
would be such necessary steps will again depend upon the circumstances
of a particular cµsc.
The High Court in the present case was .. certainly
not bound to accept readily whatever has been stated on behalf of the
State to explain the delay.
But, it was the duty of the High Couh to
have scrutinised the reasons given by the State and considered ·\he same
on merits. The circumstance that the appellant discovered that no appeal
"·as filed only in March 1965 'and that thereafter diligent steps were taken
by filing the application under Art. 227 and the appeal show that it is
nor possible to impute to the appellant want of bonQ {ides or such inaction
er negligence as would deprive them of the protection of s. 5 of the
Limitation Act.
Even if filing the application Wldelr Art. 227 was not
a proper step, if a party had acted in a partic!,ular manner on the wron~
advice given by his legal adviser be cannot be held guilty of negligence·
so as to dissentitle him to plead 'sufficient cause' under s. 5 of the Limita.·
tion Act. [883 B-D, H; 888 E-G; 889 B-C]
G
ff
A
B
WEST BENGAL v. HOWP.AH )(UNIC. (Valdialingam, /.)
8 7 5
Rc.mlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [1962] 2 S.C.ll.
71>2, Slwk1mtala Devi Jain v. Kuntc./ K11mari & Ors. [1969]1 S.C.R. 1006,
Rmn Narain Joshi v. Par111esln11ar Narain Maltta & Ors .. 30 I.A. 20 and
Kunwar Rajendra Singh v. Rai Rc.jeshwar Bali & Ors., A.l.R. 1937 P.C.
27~. referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTI0'.11 : Civil Appeals Nos. 821 to
823 of 1968.
Appeals by special leave from the order dated, A11gust
18,
1966 of the. Calcutta High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 1827 (F) to
1S29(F) of 1966.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General of India,
P. Chatterjee
C
a1'd P. K. Chakravarti, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
D. Mookherjee and S. C. Majumdar, for respondent No. 1
(in C.As. Nos. 821 and 823 of 1968).
-
D. N. Mukherjee and G. K. Deb, for respondents Nos. 2 to 4
(ia C.As. Nos. 821 a.nd 823 of 1968) and the respondents (in
D
C.A. No. 882 of 1968).
The Judgment of the_ Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J.
These three appeals, by special leave, are
directed against the comon judgment and order dated August Iii,
1966 of the Calcutta High Court dismissing Civil
Rule Nos.
827(F) to 829(F) of 1966, which were applications filed by
E
the. appellant under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.