AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 108 words
1.
We decline to extend the time u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal should have been filed on the 5th January. It was in fact filed on the 10th January. Mr. A.K. Roy on behalf of the appellant contends that he is not to blame for the delay; he throws the whole blame on the clerk of the pleader who appeared for him in the Court below. But the negligence of his agent is his negligence, and we can make no distinction between the two.
2.
The application is rejected with costs. Hearing-feel gold mohur.
3.
It follows that the memorandum of appeal must be rejected.