AJAIB SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGED in appeal here is the wholly indefensible judgment of the District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appellant's appeal as being barred by time.

(2.) THE appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court lay to the District Judge but on the advice of his counsel, the appellant filed it in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge. This appeal was filed within limitation prescribed for the filing of appeals in the court of the District Judge. When the appeal was taken up for hearing by the Senior Subordinate Judge, an objection was raised to its jurisdiction which was upheld and the Memorandum of Appeal was consequently returned to the appellant for being filed before the competent court. It was on that very day that the appellant filed the appeal before the District Judge accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

(3.) THE District Judge observed that the counsel for the appellant was clearly negligent in the performance of his duties and his mistake in filing the appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge, instead of the District Judge, could not be characterised as bona fide and consequently it was held that there was no sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay in the filing of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as being barred by time.