RAI SAHEB CHANDRAMULL INDRAKUMAR Vs. J M GOENKA
LAWS(CAL)-1963-2-27
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 06,1963

RAI SAHEB CHANDRAMULL INDRAKUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
J.M.GOENKA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KRISHNA V. CHATHAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
PROSONNA KUMARI V. RAM CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
KARALI CHARAN V. APURBA KRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ INDAR SINGH V. KAUSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
SUNDERBAI V. COLLECTOR OF BELGAUM [REFERRED TO]
IN RE. AN ATTORNEY [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF COMMERCE LTD. V. PROTAP CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
V.P.R.V. CHOKALINGAM CHETTY V. SUTHAI ACHA [REFERRED TO]
UNITED PROVINCES V. MST. ATIQA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA MOHAN V. MAHENDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
DINABANDHU SAHU V. JADUMONI [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KSHETRAMONI DASI VS. SURENDRA MOHAN KUNDU [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARITAR SINGH VS. NAGENDRA CHANDRA SETT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.N.Mookerjee, J. - (1.)I have had the advantage of reading in advocate the judgment, prepared by my learned brother. I entirely agree with him in his conclusion that this Rule should succeed. The instant case is one of accidental bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner's learned Advocate and, for the so-called delay in the making of this application, sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner. These aspects have been fully discussed by my learned brother and, broadly speaking, I am in complete agreement whether him in his above discussions.
(2.)On the point of law involved, namely, Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, I have already expressed Munsif in (1) Ram Charitar Singh and another v. Nagendra Chandra Sett and others, 64 CWN 223, where following the line of approach, indicated in the recent decisions of this Court [Vide in particular, (2) Kshetramoni Dasi v. Surenda Mohan Kundu and others, 60 CWN 200], I endeavoured to lay down, in broad and general terms the principle, underlying this part of the Statute. I am glad to have this opportunity to restate and reaffirm the same.
(3.)That, under the aforesaid Section, the Court has a discretion - a judicial discretion - to condone delay, on sufficient cause being shown, is clear on the statute. From the very nature of things, no hard and fast rule can be laid down to govern the matter or control the exercise of such discretion. Each case must depend on its own facts.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.