The period of vacation of the court cannot be excluded as the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy under section 12 of the Limitation Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed under section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act against the appellate order of Mr. H. K. S. Malik, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 8th October, 1974, by which he has dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein as barred by time. The appellant in the appeal before me is the insolvent who had been adjudicated by order dated 30th September, 1967 and a first appeal against the same was dismissed on 31st July, 1969 and a revision against the same was dismissed by this court on 27th March, 1970 and a petition for special leave to appeal has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court with the result that the adjudication has become. final. The petitioning creditor moved an application against the insolvent for directions to produce the books of account. There is some dispute as to where the account books are. The contention of the insolvent has been that they had been handed over to a private receiver appointed by the Hindustani Mercantile Association, but this fact has been denied by the opposite party. The Insolvency Court had previously ordered issue of summons to the Hindustani Mercantile Association and the said receiver to produce the account books in dispute, but on the objection of the creditor, the learned Insolvency Judge by the impugned order dated 8th June, 1973 recalled the said order holding that he was of the view that it was not at all proved that the account books were in possession of the said Association or the receiver and that the insolvent was trying to throw the burden on the said association and its receiver and so the previous order was cancelled and the case was adjourned for further proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the insolvent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which has been dismissed as barred by time.

( 2 ) THE facts material for the instant appeal are that the Insolvency Judge passed the impugned order on 8th June, 1973. From 9th June to 8th July, 1973 the District Courts were closed for the long vacation. On the 9th July, 1973 the appellant applied for supply of a certified copy of the impugned order of the Insolvency Judge. The certified copy was ready on 3rd August, 1973 and was delivered to the insolvent on 4th August, 1973. He, however, filed the appeal before the District Court on 20th August, 1973 after a delay of another 15 days. In the lower appellate court an application was moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for condonation of delay. The main allegation in the application was that during the vacation of the court, the copying agency was closed and so the appellant could not apply for supply of the certified copy and he had, therefore, rightly applied for it on the reopening day. Moreover, the application had first to be routed through the court concerned since the application for certified copy related to a pending matter. The grounds on which the condonation was sought was that the period of vacation of the court from 9th June to 8th July, 1973 should be excluded as the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy and if the same were allowed then the appeal was within time. No explanation was, however, given for each days delay subsequent to 3rd August, 1973, when the copy was ready.

( 3 ) IT was also alleged in the said application that the appellant bad not been informed of the pronouncement of the impugned order by the Insolvency Judge on 8th June, 1973 and he had come to know about it only on 9th July, 1973. This was denied by the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge by the order impugned in the instant appeal held that the Insolvency Judge had given a date for announcement of the order as 8th June, 1973 and had announced it on the said date and, therefore, the contention of the appellant that he had not come to know of the order till 9th July, 1973 was untenable. With regard to exclusion of the time, it was held that it was not