PALO Vs. AJAIB SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 41 days in filing of the appeal. Notice in the application was issued on 20.11.2009 to which no reply has been filed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has alleged that the applicant had taken legal opinion about the filing of the appeal. She was told that the limitation is 90 days though, it was later on found to be 30 days and in that process a delay of 41 days had occurred. It is alleged that delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate but bona fide. Although, no reply has been filed to the application yet learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that ignorance of law is not an excuse and on that ground, delay should not be condoned.

(2.) I have heard both the learned Counsel for the parties and I am of the view that in the given circumstances where rustic villagers like appellant had taken an opinion for filing of the appeal, to whom the limitation is told to be as 90 days and has filed the appeal even before the expiry of 90 days. It appears that delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the report has been attested by the Chowkidar of the Village-Surjan Singh and co-villager Raghuvir Singh, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend that the refusal of report has been manipulated.