ATOR ALI AND ORS. Vs. ABDUL MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOW far a mistake committed by a lawyer can be regarded as a 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is the ever important and long debated question posed in this petition for condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which a judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff No. 1 North Lakhimpur dated 30.1.82 has been challenged.

(2.) THE lawyers are supposed to be legal experts; but they (sic) no like every human -being are prone to err. But a litigant can legitimately lean on the professional advice. Here the Petitioner sent papers (perhaps with all material instructions) to (sic) approach this Court against the aforesaid judgment and decree. Shri A. Bari an old and respected lawyer, thought that no revision might lie and so he invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 12.5.82. That application was dismissed in limine on 17.5.82. The learned Counsel then detected from the records of the suit "that it was a suit under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, against which a revision lies" and so he filed the application on 20.5.82, by which date he was made (sic) late by 16 days. Hence the condonation petition.

(3.) IN this context reference may by made to Concord of India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nimala Devi : AIR 1979 SC 1666 where the held of legal opinion was made available to (sic) Insurance Company also which has literate and qualified (sic)decisions to manage its affairs. It was pointed out that despite the manager's expertise in management, a company can place reliance for legal affairs on its counsel. Of course if there, is gross delay too patent even for layman or if there is incomprehensible indifference the shield of legal opinion may become vulnerable.