Q: Extension of limitation period due to mistaken advice of legal practitioner

Ans: 

According to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any appeal or application may be accepted even after the limitation period for the same is over, if the appellant/applicant assures the court that he had a sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal/application during the limitation period.


(Rajendra Bahadur v. Rajeshwar Bali, A.I.R. P.C. 276) 

The Bombay High Court held that a mistaken advice given by the legal practitioner, may in the circumstances of a particular case, rise to sufficient within the meaning of Section 5, though there is certainly no general doctrine which saves from the result of wrong advice. 

x

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Elaborate the citation of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. SUJATHA VEDACHALAM (SMT) AND ANOTHER, 2000 ?

Ans: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. SUJATHA VEDACHALAM (SMT) AND ANOTHER, 2000 The respondent in CA No. 6423 of 1998 was working as a Senior Accountant in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 in the Office of the Accountant General, Maharashtra at Nagpur and was drawing a pay of Rs. 1260 per month. Subsequently for personal reasons the respondent sought transfer to the Office of the Accountant General, Karnataka at Bangalore. Her request for transfer was accepted on certain terms and conditions stipulated by the appellants and the same were accepted by the respondents. One of the conditions of the transfer was that the respondent had to technically resign from the post which she was holding and she was to join as direct recruit to a lower post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. On acceptance of the terms and conditions the respondent was transferred as a Clerk to the Office of the Accountant General, Karnataka at Bangalore. After the transfer to a lower post, her pay was erroneously fi...
Read more