AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 749

Supreme Court Of India

(From: Calcutta)

Hon'ble Judge(s): C. A. Vaidialingam, K. K. Mathew , JJ

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— ''Sufficient cause'' - Expression cannot be construed too liberally merely because the party in default is Government. (Para 27) (B) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— Expression ''sufficient cause" - Construction of - It should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. (Para 30) (C) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— ''Sufficient cause'' for excusing delay in filing appeal - Perusal of different remedy than appeal on wrong advice by counsel constitutes sufficient cause within Section 5. Civil Rules Nos. 1827 (F) to 1829 (F) to 1966, D/- 18-8-1966 (Cal), Reversed.(Para37A) (Para 37A) If a party had acted in a particular manner on a wrong advice given by his Legal Adviser, he cannot be held guilty of negligence so as to disentitle the party to plead sufficient cause under Section 5. AIR 1937 PC 276, Rel. on(Para 37) .....