Decided on March 10,1999

Sat Paul Sharma Appellant
Managing Director, JAndK Handicrafts Respondents


KAWOOSA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
(2.) ND June, 1990 whereby the learned District Judge, Kathua, has dismissed the appellants suit for recovery of Rs. 30,000/ - on the sole point that the suit is not within time. Facts barely needed to appreciate the point of law are as follows: - 2. That appellant engaged two advocate namely Mr. G. D. Sharma and Mr. P. S. Dutta who were working together, to file recovery suit against the respondents, for the amount of Rs. 30,000/ -. The said advocates charged Rs. 2,380/ - as court fee and counsel fee which was paid to them and the appellant was told that the suit was filed in December, 1974 but the plaintiff came to know in July, 1979 that instead of filing recovery suit the said advocates filed writ petition bearing No.239/74 in the High Court at Jammu. Appellant engaged another lawyer who told him that the proper course was to file a civil suit instead of writ petition and filing of writ petition was not proper course be taken under law. So he made an application of the Honble Chief Justice against those two advocates and solicited action against them. Moreover application was filed before the High Court for the withdrawal of the writ petition with permission to file regular suit against the respondents. Honble Justice Mr. I. K. Kotwal as he then was permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the writ petition and permitted to file present suit vide His order dated 5th September, 1979. The present appellant claimed the suit on this ground within time. According to him he was defrauded by two advocates so the period from 1974 to 1979 should be excluded. It is on this strength of order of the High Court, condonation of delay was claimed by the plaintiff on having arisen a fresh cause of action on 5th September, 1979 when he was permitted to file suit. Now the sole question arose before the trial court as to whether fraud played by the advocates, if believed to be true, can be a ground of condonation of delay under section 14 of Limitation Act.
(3.) LEARNED Trial court came to the conclusion that appellant -plaintiff has not prosecuted the case with due diligence and good faith. It has held that act of fraud is foreign to the scope of action of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, for, the commission of fraud gives a distinct cause of action to the victim to claim adequate compensation by way of filing suit for damages. Heard learned counsel for the parties.;

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