CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS application raises a point of limitation which in another case was described by Mr. Justice Panckridge as "an interesting and a not unimportant point. "

( 2 ) THE application before us is for setting aside an abatement of an appeal pending in this Court and to that application is appended a previous application for the substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The circumstances in which two applications came to be made are the following:

( 3 ) IT appears that on 12-7-1952, the petitioners got an application prepared for the legal representatives of the deceased respondent in the appeal to be substituted and in the body of that application they stated the necessary facts. The facts stated were that the respondent, Sreedam Chandra Mullick, had died interstate on April, 13 last and that the information of his death had first been conveyed to the applicants by a letter, dated 26-4-1952, written to the solicitor for the petitioners by the solicitor for the deceased. The application went on to explain why it could not have been made earlier. It would have been necessary to consider the merits of the explanation if we had to decide whether an abatement ought to be set aside, but for the reasons I am presently going to state, decision of no such question is necessary.

( 4 ) THE time limited for making the application for substitution was due to expire on July 12, that is to say, the day on which the application was made ready. That day happened to be a Saturday on which the Court does not sit. Late in the afternoon, the solicitor for the applicants made an attempt to obtain an engage- ment, first from my Lord Mr. Justice S. R. Das Gupta and then from myself, but without success. As they were under the impression that by reason of the application not having been made within the time limited by law, the appeal had abated, they made an application on the 14th, that is to say, on the very next day on which the Court was sitting for setting aside the abatement and for directing the substitution of the legal representatives after the abatement had been set aside. To this second application the first application, made simply for substitution, was attached as an annexure. I should add that the notice of motion stated, 'inter alia' that the Court would be asked for an order that the abatement of the appeal as against the heirs of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent be set aside. 4a. When, however, the application came to be moved, Mr. Bhabra submitted to us that in fact the appeal had not abated and that the application made on July 14 was a good application for substitution made within time. In support of that contention, he referred us to three decisions of this Court, namely, -- 'khi-rode Chandra v. Rarnani Mohan', AIR 1937 Cal 454 (A); -- 'k. P. Sinha v. Jatindra Nath', 41 Cal WN 4s2 (B), and lastly -- 'nur Mohammed v. S. M. Solaiman', 49 Cal WN 10 (C ). All these cases lay down that when the time limited for making an application expires on a day on which the Court or the Registrar, as the case may be, is not sitting an application made on the next day the Court is first sitting is an application made within time. Particular reference may be made to first of the three cases cited, which was a case of an application for substitution. The application had to be made before the Registrar and although the period of limitation had expired on 3-4-1937, it was made and moved on April 5, which was the first date after the close of the Easter holidays on which the Registrar was sitting. In those circumstances, it was held by S. K. Ghose and R. C. Mitter JJ. that the application had been made within time and their Lordships relied upon the decision in -- 41 Cal WN 492 (B)'. The facts in the case last-named were that the period of limitation expired on a Saturday when the Courts were not sitting and therefore the facts Were exactly as in the present case.

( 5 ) ON behalf o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document