Mistaken legal advice and unexplained delay were insufficient for condonation and exclusion of time under the Limitation Act.
Mistaken legal advice will justify condonation of delay or exclusion of time only if it is shown to have been given bona fide after due care, with a disclosed basis for the error and a satisfactory explanation for the period of inaction. The Delhi HC found that the affidavit of counsel did not explain why incorrect advice was given, did not answer the Registry's objection that appeal was the proper remedy, and left the intervening delay unexplained after the petition was returned and before refiling. Relief under Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was therefore denied, and the refusal to condone delay remained undisturbed.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground of mistaken legal advice and whether the time spent in prosecuting the revision petition could be excluded as having been pursued in good faith.
Analysis: The application for condonation of delay was founded on the assertion that counsel had bona fide advised filing a revision petition instead of an appeal. The Court held that mistaken legal advice does not, by itself, amount to sufficient cause or good faith in every case. For such reliance to succeed, the basis of the advice must be disclosed and the court must be able to see that the opinion was formed after due care and attention. In the present case, the affidavit of counsel gave no explanation why the wrong advice was given, no answer was offered when the Registry pointed out that an appeal was the proper remedy, and there was no explanation for the period of inaction after the defect was notified. The Court also noted that the delay remained unexplained from the date the petition was directed to be returned until it was refiled.
Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or good faith for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The order refusing condonation of delay was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The revision petition was dismissed, and the refusal to condone delay in filing the appeal remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A plea of mistaken legal advice can justify condonation of delay or exclusion of time only when the advice is shown to have been given bona fide after due care, with a disclosed basis for the mistake and a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
