1958 (4) TMI 128 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Application for extension of time under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act.

The judgment involves an application for extension of time under the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act. The appeal in question was filed late, and the appellant sought an extension of time for filing the appeal.

The facts of the case revolve around the dismissal of an election petition by the Tribunal under Section 90(3) for non-compliance with specified provisions. The appellant challenged this decision through a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. A Division Bench held that an appeal lay against the order under Section 98 read with Section 90(3) of the Act, and since an alternative remedy was available, the petition was dismissed.

The appellant filed the present appeal along with a request for extension of time and condonation of the delay. The reason cited for the delay was the advice received from counsel that no appeal lay, and the only remedy was under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The appellant claimed to have acted bona fide on the advice and with due diligence in filing the appeal promptly.

The respondent contended that another counsel had advised filing an appeal, and the petition under Article 226 was pursued to avoid the security deposit requirement. The appellant, in a second affidavit, denied any intention to avoid the security deposit and stated readiness to make the deposit if necessary.

The appellant presented an order from the Allahabad High Court supporting the view that no appeal lay in such cases, adding complexity to the issue. The court deliberated on whether counsel's advice could constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, considering the conflicting views on the matter.

The court referred to previous legal precedents, emphasizing that mistaken advice by legal practitioners could, in certain circumstances, amount to sufficient cause for delay. The Division Bench's interpretation of the relevant sections and the meaning of 'trial' influenced the decision on whether an appeal was the appropriate remedy in this case.

Ultimately, the court found that the appellant had not acted negligently in accepting counsel's advice, and sufficient cause had been established for the delay in filing the appeal. The time for filing the appeal was extended under Section 116A, and the appeal was admitted, with notice to be issued upon payment of the process fee within three days. No order was made regarding the costs of the matter.