KRISHNASAMY PANIKUNDAR Vs. SRMARRAMASAWMY CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to dismiss Appeal No. 163 of 1905 as barred by limitation.

(2.) The appeal time expired on Sunday the 9 July 1905 and the appeal should therefore have been presented on the 10th. It was not, however presented till the 12 and was returned as no explanation of the delay was given. It was re-presented on the 26 July with affidavits by the appellant and his law agent Veerasawmi, a private pleader. The explanation given for the delay in those affidavits is as follows:The appellant relied entirely upon Veerasawmi for the due presentation of the appeal. "Veerasawmi calculated that appeal time expired on the 8 July and believed on the strength of the Post Card Exhibit I that the High Court did not re-open after the vacation till the 10th. On the 8 July the appellant entrusted all the papers to Veerasawmi and sent him to Madras to file an appeal. Veerasawmi started on the evening of the 8 and arrived at Madras on the morning of 9 July. He then learnt that the office of the Registrar had re-opened on the 8 to receive appeals etc., and understanding that an affidavit by the appellant would be necessary to explain the delay in filing the appeal, left Madras on the evening of the 9th, again started from Tanjore with the appellant on the evening of the 10th, arrived at Madras with the appellant on the morning of the 11 and entrusted the papers to the Advocate-General who presented the appeal next day.

(3.) On the strength of those affidavits the appeal was admitted. Subsequently four affidavits made on the 22 November, 1905, were filed on behalf of the respondents. These affidavits are in the main to the effect that the appellant and Veerasawmi were seen in Madras on the morning of the 10 July. If they are true there can be no hesitation in rejecting as false the explanation given by the appellant. We shall therefore first determine whether it is true that the appellant did not arrive in Madras till the 11 July.