KARALI CHARON SARMA Vs. APURBA KRISHNA BAJPAYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the rule was issued to show cause why the time for presenting an appeal should not be extended, and why the appeal should not be registered though filed out of time.

(2.) There is no dispute as to the facts: The plaintiffs, opposite parties brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent alleged to be due from the present petitioner (defendant l) and several other persons. That suit was decreed on 17 July 1927, and an appeal by defendant 1 was dismissed by the District Judge on 26 September 1929. The petitioner thereafter applied, on 23 December 1929, for certified copies of the judgment and decree of the District Judge. The copies were ready on the evening of 4tb January 1930 and were taken by a clere of the petitioner's pleader on 6 January. The petitioner received them or? 8 January and sent them through an agent to Calcutta with instructions to make them over to the petitioner's advocate, Mr. Bejoy Kumar Bhattacharjya. The agent reached Calcutta on the morning of 9 January, which was, it appears, the last day for filing the appeal. It happened however that the advocate was pressed for time owing to having several other matters in his hands and that he was not able to examine the papers. The result was that when he returned from Court in the evening it was discovered that the appeal had become timebarred.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon filed the present application for extension of time under Section 5, Limitation Act. Now that section lays down inter alia that an appeal ....may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, when the appellant...satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring it within the prescribed period.