Kamal Kishore, J. - (1.) THIS is the second civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.5.1979 passed by Sri Ashok Kumar, the then learned Civil Judge, Pratapgarh, dismissing the appeal No. 198 of 1977 as barred by limitation and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1977, passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra Tewari, the then learned Munsif Kunda at Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No. 48 of 1968, which was a suit for declaration of title. The following question of law has been formulated in this second appeal: - - Whether the learned Civil Judge has erred in holding that the first appeal is barred by law of limitation for filing the appeal?
(2.) I have heard arguments and have gone through the record. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in filing the first appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Pratapgarh was due to wrong advice given by the counsel at Pratapgarh, as a result of which the first appeal was filed after the period of limitation. It is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time barred appeal. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. However, the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeal are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. In the instant case, however, the appellant has failed to show the sufficient cause to condone the delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
(3.) IN the instant case the learned trial court has delivered its judgment on 31.8.1977. The appellant was negligent in moving the copying application at once and was negligent in filing the first appeal after much delay. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the delay in filing the first was due to the wrong advice of the counsel at Pratapgarh who was negligent of law is no excuse. Ignorance of law resulting in inaction on the part of a litigant to assert his rights of which he has no knowledge as a result of such ignorance does not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act as has been held in ruling reported in 18 Bombay Law Reporter; 751.;