TMI Blog1889 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the file of the Subordinate Court of North Malabar certain immoveable properties were sold. The appellant instituted original suit No. 5 of 1886 to set aside the sale and took the amount of the decree in the first-mentioned suit, which exceeded ₹ 5,000, as the value of the second suit. 2. The Subordinate Court dismissed his suit and he preferred an appeal to the High Court. This Court he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sufficient cause for the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We are not prepared to hold that a mistake of law is under no circumstances a sufficient cause within the meaning of that section. In an unreported case to which we have been referred, the appellant valued his partition suit at the amount claimed for his share instead of taking the value of the entire property to be the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase the appellant acted under an honest, though mistaken, belief formed with due care and attention. Section 14 of the Limitation Act indicates that the Legislature intended to show indulgence to a party acting bona fide under a mistake. We think that Section 5 gives the Courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
