Question based on General and Commercial Law

For A.  There is a reasonable cause.

For B No cognizance can be taken due to unreasonable delay.

Thanks for reply, but i have to mention the section bcz without giving the explanation of section the answer is wrong, try to understand.

thanks and regards,

renuka

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Answer to question 1:

       Part II (5) of The Limitations Act, 1963 states the provisions for extension of prescribed period in certain cases. Wherein it is said that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Though it is not mentioned anywhere what amounts to sufficient cause.

Explanation.-The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

In our case as the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months which seems to be a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Hence the court will be justified in extending the period of limitation in this case.