Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.77 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Kunwar Rajendar Bahadur Singh vs Rajeshwar Bali on 18 June, 1937
Admittedly,
writ petitions under Art. 227 were filed on May 17, 1965, in
which the High Court granted stay of execution of the
decree under the Award. We have already referred to the
fact that these writ petitions were kept pending till
September 28, 1966. It may be, that the State was not
properly advised regarding the remedy to be adopted to
challenge the judgment in the Land Acquisition Reference
Cases. But, as pointed out by the Judicial Committee in
Kunwar Rajendra Singh v. Rai Rajeshwar Bali and others(1),
if a party had acted in a particular manner on a wrong
advice given by his Legal Adviser, he cannot be held guilty
of negligence so as to disentitle the party to plead
sufficient cause under s. 5 of the Limitation Act. In
fact the Judicial Committee observes as follows :
Ram Narain Joshy vs Parmeswar Narain Mahta And Ors. on 20 July, 1897
2 to 4 invited our attention to the decision of the Judicial
committee in Ram Narain Joshi v. Parmeshwar Narain Mahta
and, others(1), where the Judicial Committee declined to
interfere with the order of the High Court declining to
excuse the delay in filing an appeal under s. 5 of the
Limitation Act on the ground that no sufficient cause was
shown by the party concerned. The judgment of the High
Court, which was under appeal before the Judicial Committee,
is contained in the report. The High Court had considered
the reasons given by the party for filing the appeal out of
time. After a full and detailed consideration of the
reasons given by the party, the High Court had come to the
conclusion that the party had not shown due diligence in the
matter of filing appeal and, therefore, if was further held
that no sufficient cause had been shown for not having filed
the appeal within time. The Judicial Committee after a
consideration of the reasons given by the High Court
declined to interfere on the ground that they were satisfied
that the refusal by the High Court to admit the appeal after
the period of limitation was over, was justified. This
decision does not help the respondents in view of the fact
that there has been no such proper consideration by the High
Court in the case before us. We have already stated that
the High Court has neither adverted to the reasons given by
the appellant; nor has the High Court expressed its views on
them.
Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
The observations of the Madras High Court, extracted in the
above decision, have again been quoted with approval in
Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and others(1). On the
particular facts of the case, this Court held in the said
decision that it was not a case where it was possible to
impute to the appellant therein want of bonafide or such
inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the
protection of s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Mr. D. N. Mukherji learned counsel for the respondents Nos.
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
It has been pointed out by this Court in-Ramlal, Motilal and
Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1) as follows:
1