ORDER
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay it has been stated, by the deponent that he, is an illiterate person and he did not know about the limitation for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. In paragraph-3 it is stated 'It is submitted that I am an illiterate person and did not know about the limitation for filing the Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. Only when my friend who met with an accident in the same accident had informed me about the same, then only i understand. After making some financial arrangements for the expenses to be incurred for filing the Appeal, I came to Bangalore without making further delay and instructed my Counsel for filing the same before this Hon'ble Court. Hence there is some delay which is due to above mentioned bonafide reasons and not intentional one.' No counter affidavit has been filed controverting these allegations. Therefore there appears no reason to reject it. Instead whatever has been stated as reason for delay has to be accepted namely that the appellant had no knowledge of law of limitation and the limitation for filing the appeal. But the question is whether can it be taken as sufficient cause. In the case of M.P. SUGAR MILLS vs . STATE OF U.P., : [1979]118ITR326(SC) it has been observed that 'Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement; there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule J., pointed out in MARTINDALE vs. FALKNER, (1846) 2 CG 706 'There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law; it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so' Scrutton, L.J., also once said : 'It is impossible to know all the statutory law, and not very impossible to know all the common law.' It is one of the principles of our Constitution that no person should be deprived of the legal remedies because of economic or other disabilities. Illiteracy is also a disability and the consequential ignorance of law of limitation as such it can be said to be a disability of the person as the economic disability. In this view of the matter, in the matter relating to the right of a person to approach a Court to obtain the legal relief unless malafide shown or established simply on the ground of ignorance of law or lack of knowledge of law of limitation or the like no person should be punished for delay in filing the appeal by dismissing the appeal as time barred. Really in such cases keeping in view these basic principles of law as laid down in M.P. SUGAR MILLS case I think it would be just and proper to take and hold that the cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is sufficient, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Let the appeal be registered in the regular course as M.F.A.
Let a copy of this order be placed in MFA (FRO 2240/1994 as well. Delay in filing that appeal is also condoned.