SHAMBHU NATH Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the judgement and decrr of the learned Subordinate Judge Anantnag dated 30 -6 -1979 an appeal was preffered by the applicant herein before the District Judge, Anantnag.That appeal was on 22 -10 -1982 returned to the appellant on the ground thet District Judge,Anantnag did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeallant, therefore, presented the appeal in this Court and along with the memo of appeal, filed an application under Sec. 14 red with Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of demy. The application has been resisted and objections have been filed,

(2.) ON behalf of the applicant it has been stated that the applicant had handed over the copy of the judgment and decree to his lawyer Shri P. L. Handoo, for filling an appeal but the counsel in good faith and under a bonafide belief having been misled by the decree sheet which did not make any mention about the valuation of the suit, filed the appeal before the District Court. It is then averred in the application that the applicant without wasting any time presented the appeal immediately after the same was returned to him. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applies in which inter alia, it is deposed "that the appeal was filed in ,he wrong court due to bonafide mistake of the counsel and due to" mistake in decree sheet". The application has prayed for condonation of delay and has sought the exclusion of the time caused in prosecuting the appeal before the District Judge,

(3.) IN the objections filed, it has been stated that no cogent reason for condonation of delay is available to the applicant because the memo of appeal, the plaint and the judgment, reveal that the valuation, of the subject matter for the purposes of jurisdiction is Rs 10000/ - and there was no possibility under the circumstances for any one to be misled about the proper forum. It has further been averred in the objections that through a written application it was brought to the nonce of the learned District Judge by the respondent that he did not have "the pecuniary jurisdiction to heat the appeal but the applicant did not concede the position at that time and therefore is not entitled to the condonation of delay It is maintained that the mistake committed was not committed in good faith and that "an eminent counsel of Mr. Handoos standing cannot claim condonation against such a glaring and deliberate omission". "The non -applicant has further stated that the affidavit filed alongwith the application is sworn by the applicant himself and that "It is surprising that he has been able to affirm as to what he alleges to be within the knowledge of his learned counsel Mr, Handoo". Who has not sworn an affidavit to this effect.