JUDGMENT
S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Challenged in appeal here is the wholly indefensible judgment of the District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appellant’s appeal as being barred by time.
2. The appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court lay to the District Judge but on the advice of his counsel, the appellant filed it in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge. This appeal was filed within limitation prescribed for the filing of appeals in the court of the District Judge. When the appeal was taken up for hearing by the Senior Subordinate Judge, an objection was raised to its jurisdiction which was upheld and the Memorandum of Appeal was consequently returned to the appellant for being filed before the competent court. It was on that very day that the appellant filed the appeal before the District Judge accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
3. The District Judge observed that the counsel for the appellant was clearly negligent in the performance of his duties and his mistake in filing the appeal before the Senior
Subordinate Judge, instead of the District Judge, could not be characterised as bona fide and consequently it was held that there was no sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay in the filing of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as being barred by time.
4. The approach of the District Judge, in this matter, cannot but be branded as wholly untenable and erroneous. The appellant being a person untrained in law cannot, in the absence of any mala fides, be penalised for the mistake of law committed by his counsel in filing the appeal before the wrong forum. In the present case there is no warrant for holding that the mistake committed in filing the appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge was anything but bona fide.
5. A pertinent circumstance to note here is that the objection was at any time raised by the office of the Senior Subordinate Judge to the jurisdiction of that court to hear the appeal.
6. Further as mentioned earlier, the appeal was filed before the District Judge oh the
very day on which the Memoradum of Appeal was returned to the appellant by the Senior
Subordinate Judge.
7. Such being the circumstances, there was ample justification to warrant the condonation of the delay in the filing of the appeal. This delay is consequently hereby condoned and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and the case is remanded to that court for decision on merits in accordance with law. This appeal is consequently hereby accepted with costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Distt. Judge. Patiala on 20-7-1988.