HAKIMIA Vs. J. C. GAMMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. This application for revision of the decree of the Small Cause Court, Akola, has been filed four days beyond the period, settled by the practice of this Court, for filing civil revision. The delay is sought to be explained for reasons disclosed in the affidavit of the applicant and which, briefly stated, are that he was suddenly attacked by asthma and had to leave Akola on 20th December 1928 for Delhi, that he was detained at the latter place for treatment and. returned back to Akola on 10th January 1929, that on the 11th idem he went to-his pleader, Mr. Gupta, and received certified copies of the judgment and decree of the lower Court which the pleader had kept ready, and that ha came down to Nagpur immediately on the 12th idem and filed the application for revision on the same day. The applicant prays that under the circumstances stated above the delay be condoned because it was unavoidable.

(2.) I , however, find myself unable to accept the suggestion that the delay was unavoidable. The decree of the lower Court was passed on 31st October 1928, and the application for copies was put in, apparently by his pleader, on 3rd November and the certified copy was delivered to him as far back as 26th idem. The applicant has not explained why he took no steps between 26th November till 20th December when he had to leave Akola for Delhi. The delay in the presentation of this application could very easily have been avoided if steps had been taken by the applicant to file the same before the applicant was attacked with serious illness which may have incapacitated him later from taking any action in the matter in time. The learned advocate for the applicant states that from the very beginning the applicant had intended to come down hero for filing the revision in the first week of January but that be was prevented from doing so on account of his sudden illness. But as laid down in Kedarnath v. Zumberlal [1916] 12 N.L.R. 171 an appellant, who wilfully 1eaves the preparation and presentation of his appeal to the last day of the period of limitation prescribed therefore, is guilty of negligence and is not entitled to an extension of time if some unexpected or unforeseen contingency prevents him from filing the appeal within time.