POTTA SITHARAMIAH Vs. V VIRRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is for condoning the delay of 60 days in presenting a pauper appeal. The ground pleaded is that the Advocates Clerk in the lower Court informed the petitioner that the time for filing a second appeal is 90 days.

(2.) We have two Articles in the Limitation Act governing the filing of Second Appeals. In cases where court-fee is paid or payable. Article 156 applies and the period is 90 days while in the case of appeals filed in form a paupers Article 170 prescribes the period as 30 days. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that by mistake the provision of Article 170 was overlooked and that there are decisions which say that a vakils mistake or a vakils clerks mistake is capable of condemnation. Krishna v. Chathappan, ILR 13 Mad 269 is relied on for the observation that the learned Judges "are not prepared to hold that a mistake in law is under no circumstances a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act." The Court was dealing with a case where the party was advised that an appeal lay to the High Court inasmuch as the decree was for a sum exceeding Rs. 5,000.00. The appeal was filed but was returned by the High Court on the ground that the criterion was the value of the property and not the amount of the decree. The appeal was represented to the District Court but was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation in the view that the delay was caused by an error in the choice of the forum.

(3.) There were no doubt several cases like ILR 13 Mad 269 where by some mistake the institution of the appeal was in one Court while it should have been in another Court. If it were a suit that was filed in a wrong Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act would have direct application and the delay capable of condensation. The section does not apply in terms to appeals but the Courts have virtually extended the principle of Section 14 to appeals.