NADUBHAGOM N S KARAYOGAM Vs. GOPALAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of the order in CRP. No. 2280 of 1978 on grounds that follow.

(2.) The application for revision was filed beyond the period of limitation. While condoning the delay, the Court overlooked the fact that the petition for condonation was filed after the application for revision and as such not maintainable. The ground on which the application for condonation was filed was that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Court, Alleppey. It was long after the appeal was held to be not maintainable that the revision petition was filed. In returning the appeal memo, the District Court, no doubt, allowed a period of three weeks for presentation. But since that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it was not competent to grant time for representation also. This fact has been overlooked in condoning the delay in the case. The second ground for the review is that the court overlooked the decision in Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (1974 KLT 806) wherein it has been held that the liability under a kuri security bond is a loan in spite of the fact that payment of the amount due is to be made only in monthly instalments.

(3.) As regards sufficiency of cause for condoning delay, it is now well settled that delay can be condoned in the case of mistake of the party in relation to the legal remedy available to him. If a litigant who failed in the Trial Court by mistake due to incorrect legal advice files an appeal where none lies and subsequently files a revision petition beyond the period of limitation, the delay caused can be condoned in proper cases. In the instant case, the party was under the bona fide impression that he could avail of the time granted by the appellate court for presenting the revision petition in this Court. The mistake, if any, was on the part of the Court in granting time for presentation. A party should not be allowed to suffer if he was misled by a wrong order of the Court. Therefore, there is no scope for review of the order on the ground that the application for condonation of delay was allowed on insufficient grounds.