CHITTARMAL Vs. SHEO NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration arid mandatory injunction.

(2.) IT is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail Suffice it to say that the appellant Chhitarmal and respondent No. 3 Kanhiya Lal filed a suit is the court of Munsif, Laxmangarh (District Alwar) for declaration and mandatory injunction against Sbeo Narain. One Bhagwan Sahai was also impleaded as proforma defendant. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on 26th April, 1965. The plaintiff appellant preferred an appeal but the some was dismissed by the learned Sanior Civil Judge Alwar on 7tb April, 1967. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) THE only ground which the appellant mentioned in his application for condonation of delay was that he being a villager and a simple man never knew that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have to be brought on record within 90 days. In other words, the appellant wants this Courts to give him benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation. Act on account of his ignorance of law. The question that arises is other the ignorance of law on the part of a party is a sufficient reason for extending the period of limitation It has beers bed in I.L.R. (1954) 4, Rajasthan page 351 that delay cannot be excused under Section 5 of the Limitation Act merely on the plea of ignorance of law. Such a plea cannot have good basis to condone the breach of law. This is a Division Bench decision of this Court and is binding on me.