R. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is an application Under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay of one day in the institution of this appeal. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the Legal Remembrancer to the State Government sent a telegram to the Collector, Hardoi, directing him to file an appeal and informing him that the period of limitation was to expire on 24 -11 -1956. The appeal was then filed on the 24th November, but on calculation by the office of this Court it was found that the period of limitation actually expired on the 23rd November. An application was then made on behalf of the Appellant for condoning the delay of one day Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.) THE application has been opposed on two grounds. Firstly it is contended that S. 343 (2) of the ZA and LR Act provided a special period of limitation for appeals different from the one given in the Indian Limitation Act and as such the applicant was not entitled to take advantage of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, in view of the provisions of S. 29 of the Limitation Act. It cannot be disputed that so far as second appeals to the High Court are concerned, the period of limitation is governed by the Limitation Act. It has always been ninety days and continues to be ninety days even Under Section 343(2) of the ZA and LR Act. The ZA and LR Act therefore does not provide a period of limitation different from the one given in the Limitation Act. The provisions of S. 29 of the Indian Limitation Act will not therefore make S. 5 of the Limitation Act inapplicable to a second appeal instituted under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure There is, therefore, no force in this contention. The second contention is that the applicant has not given adequate reasons for justifying condonation of delay. In the present case the telegram from the Legal Remembrancer was received by the Collector of Hardoi on the 22nd November and the appeal could have been instituted within limitation if instituted on the 23rd November, but as the information given by the Legal Remembrancer was innocent the appeal could not be instituted on the 23rd November and was instituted on the 24th November. This mistake was evidently a bona fide mistake inasmuch as the Appellant was entitled to rely on the information of the Legal Remembrancer which subsequently turned out to be incorrect. This is a good ground in this case for condoning the delay of one day. The application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is therefore allowed and the appeal is admitted.;