Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohan Khemlo Bandekar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16/10/2014 passed by the Additional Collector-II, North Goa, rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing a revision application under Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966. The background of the case involves an order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 4 of the Act directing the petitioner to remove obstructions from a right of way claimed by the respondent no.2, Rajaram Khemlo Bandekar. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner consulted his lawyer, who advised him that the revision application could be filed before the Deputy Collector. Acting on this advice, the petitioner filed the revision application before the Deputy Collector, but it was later discovered that the application should have been filed before the Collector. The petitioner then filed the application before the Additional Collector, who is an officer authorised under Section 22(3) to exercise the powers of the Collector. However, there was a delay in filing, and the Additional Collector rejected the application for condonation of delay, holding that the mistake of the lawyer was not a sufficient cause. The legal issue before the High Court was whether the delay should be condoned when the petitioner acted on the erroneous legal advice of his lawyer. The petitioner argued that the mistake was bona fide and that he should not suffer due to his lawyer's error. The respondent contended that the petitioner was negligent. The court, relying on the principle that a litigant should not suffer for the mistake of his lawyer, held that the mistake was bona fide and constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The court set aside the impugned order and condoned the delay, directing the Additional Collector to hear the revision application on merits within three months. The decision was in favor of the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - Bona Fide Mistake of Lawyer - The petitioner, acting on the advice of his lawyer, filed a revision application before the Deputy Collector instead of the Collector, resulting in delay. The court held that the mistake of the lawyer, being bona fide, constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and the petitioner should not suffer for the lawyer's error. (Paras 6-7) B) Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 - Revision - Section 22(3) - Authorised Officer - The Additional Collector, being an officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector and authorised by the Government, has the power to exercise revisional powers under Section 22. The petitioner's revision application was filed before the Additional Collector, who is competent to hear it. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in filing the revision application before the Additional Collector under Section 22(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966, should be condoned when the petitioner acted on the erroneous legal advice of his lawyer.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 16/10/2014, and condoned the delay in filing the revision application. The Additional Collector was directed to hear the revision application on merits within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Bona fide mistake of lawyer
- Liberal approach
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- Section 22 of Goa
- Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act
- 1966
