Wrong legal advice does not automatically excuse delay; revision also fails without a jurisdictional error.
Delay in filing a civil revision was held not to be condoned where the applicant relied on alleged wrong legal advice but gave only a bare assertion without full disclosure of the circumstances showing bona fide and sufficient cause. The Court reiterated that liberal treatment in delay matters is not automatic, especially where the statutory remedy requires prompt action. It also held that revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to jurisdictional error and cannot be used for appellate reappraisal of findings on merits. No jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity in the trial court's order was shown, so interference was declined.
Issues: (i) Whether delay in filing the civil revision should be condoned on the ground of wrong legal advice and filing of an earlier appeal in the wrong court; (ii) Whether any jurisdictional error in the trial court's order was shown so as to justify interference in revision.
Issue (i): Whether delay in filing the civil revision should be condoned on the ground of wrong legal advice and filing of an earlier appeal in the wrong court.
Analysis: The application for condonation was founded on the plea that previous counsel had wrongly pursued an appeal instead of the correct remedy. The Court noted that although a liberal approach is generally adopted in delay matters, condonation is not automatic. Where the applicant relies on wrong advice of counsel, the basis of such advice and the circumstances showing bona fides must be disclosed. A bare and general assertion of mistaken advice was held insufficient, especially where no complaint had been made against the advocate and the statutory scheme itself required speedy relief.
Conclusion: Delay was not condoned; the plea of wrong advice did not constitute sufficient cause.
Issue (ii): Whether any jurisdictional error in the trial court's order was shown so as to justify interference in revision.
Analysis: The petition challenged the findings of the trial court, but no jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity was demonstrated. The scope of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined and does not permit appellate reappraisal of findings on merits. On the facts presented, the Court found no basis for revisional interference.
Conclusion: No revisional jurisdictional error was established, and interference was declined.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed on both delay and merits, and the impugned order was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A plea of wrong legal advice, without full disclosure of the circumstances showing bona fide and sufficient cause, is not enough to condone delay, and revision cannot be used as a substitute for appeal in the absence of jurisdictional error.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
