Sitaram Paraji v. Nimba Valad Harishet

Sitaram Paraji v. Nimba Valad Harishet

(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)

| 20-06-1887

Raymond West, J.

1. Decree confirmed with costs. The time spent in the actual proceedings in the suit to set aside the order in execution might properly be deducted in computing the delay that occurred before the present appeal was filed. Such a deduction would follow the analogy of the rule prescribed by Section 14 of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877) for ordinary suits. But a deduction of the time that passed before the suit was filed would not follow that analogy. Mere ignorance of the law cannot be recognized as a sufficient reason for delay under Section 5 of the Act, for that would be a premium on ignorance.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE RAYMOND WEST
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE H.M. BIRDWOOD
Eq Citations
  • ILR 1888 12 BOM 320
  • LQ/BomHC/1887/20
Head Note

Limitation Act, 1963 — S. 5 and S. 14 — Delay in filing appeal against order in execution — Deduction of time spent in actual proceedings in suit to set aside order in execution — Held, analogy of S. 14 for ordinary suits can be followed — But time that passed before suit was filed cannot be deducted — Mere ignorance of law cannot be recognized as a sufficient reason for delay — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 96