MANU RAM Vs. MUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the purposes of entertaining cross -objection. The cross -objection is delayed by 25 days. It is stated in the affidavit that the respondent was served with the notice in the month of Feb. 1993 for the next date 12.4.93. On 12.4.93 he came to Jodhpur and engaged a counsel and Vakalatnama was filed on that very date. The file of the trial court was not with the respondent while discussing the matter with the counsel, the counsel advised that as he has already paid Rs. 63,000/ -. The Court should not have directed for again payment of the amount to the appellant and for that reason counsel advised to file cross -objection to challenge the finding on issue No. 1. On such advice on the very same day he went to the Suratgarh to collect the judgment and file from his local counsel and came to Jodhpur on 15.4.93 and the cross -objection was prepared and filed on 17.4.93. The plea of ignorance of law about the limitation with effect from the date of service of the summon was also taken. The application is supported by an affidavit of the respondent. No reply has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that ignorance of law is no excuse and does not furnish any ground for condoning any delay. He place reliance on hukum Singh and Ors. v. Bhanwar Singh and Ors. ILR 1954(4) Raj. 351, Chittarmal v. Shee Narain and Ors. 1976 WLN (U.C) 174 and Nanda and Ors. v. Lachman and Ors. 1982 Madhya Pradesh 8. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent urged that there is no principle in law which gives rise to a presumption that everybody knows every law. For this proposition he relies on Ms. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 1979 Supreme Court 621. As a corolary he anyuest follows that if there is no presumption that everybody knows the law, there cannot be a strait jacket rule that ignorance of law does not furnish an excuse. He also relies on Ram Sumiran and Ors. v. D.D.C. and Ors. 1985 Supreme Court 606 and a decision of this Court in Bhanwarlal and Anr. v. Late Madan Lal and Anr. 1988(1) WLN page 725 wherein the Courts have condoned the delay in making an application by taking note of the plea about the ignorance of law when there is no presumption that everybody knows every law. In given circumstances, it may furnish sufficient cause for condoning delay in terms of Section 5 of Limitation Act.

(3.) VIEWED in the light of the principles enunciated above and the unrebuttcd facts of the present case that the respondent is coming from a rural area, he appeared on the first date of hearing and lodged his 'Vakalatnama' and when advised by his counsel brought these file from the local counsel in the district and lodged cross -objection within 5 days, in the circumstances, it cannot be presumed that delay was occasioned deliberately or on account of capable negligence or on account of malafides. In these circumstances, the interest of substantial justice should give way to the technical considerations by permitting the litigants to have their say in the matter particularly when the appeal is pending and whole subject matter is before this Court for review.