Darshna Devi vs Darbari Lal

S.S. Sodhi and R.N. Mittal, JJ.—This appeal is barred by time and the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act reveals no grounds to warrant condonation of the delay in filing it.

The reason for the delay was attributed to "bona fide mistaken advice given to the applicant and her father by their counsel that the period of limitation was 90 days and also due to the untimely illness and death of Sham Lal, brother of the father of the applicant "

Mistaken advice of counsel provides no blanket immunity from the law of limitation. As was observed in AIR 1937 276 (Privy Council) "Mistaken advice given by a legal practitioner may, in the circumstances of a particular case, give rise to sufficient cause within the (meaning of the) section though there is certainly no general doctrine which saves parties from the results of wrong advice." It follows, therefore, that it is only bona fide mistake committed in good faith that can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, there was no mention of the name of the counsel who is said to have given such wrong advice to the appellant or her father. In dealing with this aspect of the matter, the Court in Gajjan Singh Vs. Ram Lok, held "the crux of the matter would be the standing and status of the counsel, the circumstances under which a mistake is committed and absence of negligence or inaction so as to brand the conduct as one in good faith, and these factors would be taken into account while holding that a wrong advice given by a counsel would or would not be a sufficient cause under S. 5 of the Limitation Act."

As regards the other reason, namely the death of the appellant''s uncle, it would be pertinent to note that he is said to have died on December 22, 1984, whereas the present appeal was filed only a month thereafter, that is, on January 25, 1985. There is no explanation to explain this delay.