Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Shib Dayal And Anr. vs Jagannath Prasad on 7 February, 1922

Hanuman Dass vs Pirthvi Nath And Ors. on 13 February, 1956

16. So far this Bench is concerned it is bound by the Full Bench decision in Shib Dayal's case (E) where it was held that an honest mistake of counsel even though a negligent one, is sufficient cause. What negligence of an agent may be excused will again depend upon the facts of each case. It is not every negligence that would be condoned. Only that species of negligence may be considered as amounting to sufficient cause which any reasonable person situated in the position of the agent may in all honesty commit. Such neglience may, in other words, be said to be 'an honest mistake due to forgetfulness or oversight,' judged from the standard of a reasonable man.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Ashutosh Bhadra And Anr. vs Jatindra Mohan Seal And Anr. on 23 August, 1949

9. I must confess that this is a border line case; but on the whole I am satisfied that there was material upon which the learned Judge could exercise his discretion in favour of the plaintiff. As I have said the plaintiff was not in Calcutta. If a very strict view be taken, then it could well be held that the plaintiff had ample time to make this application. But it appears to me that in cases of this kind the Court must take a reasonably liberal view. It must not be forgotten that the main cause for delay in the trial of a suit is the Court itself. Often the parties get ready and then have to wait years before the Court can hear them. In such circumstances I do not think that too strict a view should be taken of the conduct of the parties. This matter was considered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of -- 'Shib Dayal v. Jagannath AIR 1922 All 490 (A). That was a case where the Court held that an honest mistake on the part of a litigant caused by erroneous advice given to him by his vakil in the district, by reason of which an appeal was not filed until the period of limitation therefor had expired, is a good ground for the application in favour of the would-be appellant of the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ambika Ranjan Majumdar vs Manikganj Loan Office Ltd. on 15 November, 1927

In Sib Dayal v. Jagannath Prasad A.I.R. 1922 All. 490, a second appeal was filed on the last day prescribed by the law of limitation without a copy of the judgment of the first Court. When that judgment was filed and the case was properly constituted, the appeal was time barred The appellant pleaded that the failure to comply with the rules of the Court was due to the error of the vakil of the district who had informed him that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court were alone necessary.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Mohan Prasad Singh Deo vs Ganesh Prasad Bhagat And Ors. on 13 April, 1951

8. There can be no doubt in matters of this kind the question is ultimately one depending on the discretion of the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances. It is difficult to lay down any stereo-typed rules to govern all cases. But decided cases have indicated certain broad principles for the exercise of that discretion. Where the mistake which occasioned the delay is clearly and definitely attributable to the litigant himself or to his servant, or agent, what is required to be proved is that the mistake has occurred in spite of due diligence on their part. But in considering what is the standard of due diligence to be expected, one must necessarily have regard to various circumstances including the prevalent conditions. But where the mistake is attributable to the lawyer to whom he has entrusted his work, the Courts have generally thought it proper to condone the delay unless the mistake of the lawyer is due to unreasonable negligence. See 'RAM RAVJI v. PRALHADAS', 20 Bom 133; 'SHIB DAYAL v. JAGANNATH', 44 All 636; 'SURENDRA MOHAN v. MOHENDRA NATH', 59 Cal 781; 'DATTATRAYA v. SECY. OF STATE', 45 Bom 607.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Bhagirathi Padhan And Ors. vs Achuta Padhan And Ors. on 15 December, 1964

In Shib Dayal v. Jagannath, AIR 1922 All 490 (FB) their Lordships held that an honest though a negligent mistake about High Court practices by a pleader in the mofussil court was a sufficient cause for extending the period of limitation under Section 5. Though that case was not one of mistaken computation of the period of limitation, there are certain observations which are apposite. Mears, C. J., observed as follows :
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Munshi Ram And Anr. vs Raghubir Chand on 31 July, 1952

In -- 'Shib Dayal v. Jagannath', 44 All 638 (FB), the delay in filing appeal was caused due to the mistaken advice of counsel that copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance was not required. The delay was condoned on the ground that an honest mistake, even though a negligent one, ought not to be allowed to prejudice the client. This view in judging the conduct of the counsel is clearly in accord with the definition of 'good faith' in the General Clauses Act but not, with the stricter definition of the Limitation Act.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mumtaz-Ud-Daula Mukarram Ali Khan Of ... vs James R.R. Skinner on 1 December, 1924

4. Two points are urged. First, that it is a final order; second, that the case is "otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council." It will be convenient to take the latter point first the proposed suit is one for redemption and, whether the plaintiff be right or not in contending that she had six months within which to implead the heirs, there can be little doubt that, if there had been a prompt application based on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Counsel for the plaintiff need not greatly have concerned himself with the question whether the limitation was three or six months, but could have contended that, if he were wrong in his belief that it was six months, the two days default ought to be condoned, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shib Dayal v. Jagannath Prasad A.I.R. 1922 All. 490.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next