W RABI SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application is filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, for condoning the delay of 831 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 31.03.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 118 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the applicant-appellant.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant-appellant as well as Mr. H. Devendro, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents.

(3.) WE have given our anxious thought to the submission of the learned counsel of the parties. WE have also perused the contention made in paragraphs 3 to 11 of the instant application. On perusal of the contention as stated in the application, it appears that there are only some vague and omnibus allegations against the learned counsel engaged by the petitioner in his writ petition. From the application, it also appears that the applicant-appellant engaged more than one lawyer in the writ petition filed by him, and admittedly, he did not divulge the name of the lawyer, for whose fault he could not file the writ appeal in time. It further appears from Annexure- C/1 i.e. a no objection letter, issued by one learned counsel, namely, L. Jayanta Roy, wherein he stated that he had no objection to conduct the writ petition, being WP(C) No. 118/02, and any writ appeal with reference to the said writ petition by any other Advocate other than him, meaning thereby, the learned counsel had consented only to the engagement of any other counsel in the writ petition and with reference to the same in an appeal. Therefore, according to us, it cannot be safely said that the delay caused in preferring the appeal was due to the negligence of the learned counsel. There is no doubt that a litigant should not be penalized either for the fault or for the wrong advice of his engaged lawyer but in the instant case though the applicant-appellant was informed again and again by his counsel regarding non-filing of the appeal in time, then also he had pursued such lawyer and persistently gone on misunderstanding regarding the period of limitation.