Section 78 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, extends the provisions of Sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act to appeals and applications under the Act, allowing for the exclusion of time spent in obtaining a certified copy of a judgment or order from the limitation period.

AVADH BEHART ROHATGI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the order of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated December 2,1974.

( 2 ) THESE are the facts. The petitioner was an employee of Oriental Radio Corporation. He was dismissed from service. He went to the Labour Court. The Labour Court refused reinstatement, but made an order for Rs. 7020 in favour of the employee against the Corporation for wages.

( 3 ) IN the meanwhile the Corporation became bankrupt. The employee approached the Official Receiver for the admission of his debt of Rs. 7020. The Official Receiver by order dated February 24, 1973 admitted the claim of the employee to the extent of Rs. 2106 but refused to admit the remainder of the claim.

( 4 ) AGAINST the decision of the Official Receiver, the employee preferred TO an appeal under s. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (the Act) to the judge, Insolvents Estate. This appeal was filed on March 20, 1973.

( 5 ) S. 68 provides that a person, aggrieved by the order of the Official Receiver can apply to the Court within a period of 21 days. When the matter came up before the Judge, the Official Receiver raised a preliminary objection. He said that the appeal filed by the employee was barred by time.

( 6 ) ON May 31, 1973, the employee made an application under ss. 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act praying for extension of time. The judge rejected this application. On the appeal he held that the section provided only for "an application" and since the application was made after more than 21 days of the making of the order the application was barred by time.

( 7 ) AGAINST the order of the Insolvency Judge, the employee appealed to the district court. His appeal was dismissed on December 2, 1974 by the Additional District Judge. Now there is a revision by the employee to this Court.

( 8 ) WHEN the matter was first heard by me on October 24. 1975, Mr. Nayyar on behalf of the petitioner raised only one point. He argued that there was sufficient cause for extension of limitation and that the courts below were wrong in refusing to extend time. He submitted that it was a case of mistake of the counsel who advised the employee that under s. 68 an appeal had to be filed against the order dated February 24, 1973 and for that purpose a certified copy will be required. Acting on this advice, it was said, the employee made an application for certified copy. The certified copy was obtained before 21 days had passed. But the appeal was filed after the expiry of 21 days on the mistaken advice of the counsel, it was submitted. He argued that there was a clear case of mistake of the counsel and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 5, Limitation Act.

( 9 ) THIS argument did not impress me. Nor did it find favour with the judges in the courts below. I, therefore, dismissed the revision on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for extension of time under s. 5, Limitation Act. I dictated the order in open court on October 24, 1975.

( 10 ) BEFORE I signed the order, it occurred to me that there was another and a better point in this case which the counsel had not taken. . I made my own research. I found that s. 78 in the Act provided that s. 12 of the Limitation Act applied to s. 68 and the petitioner was entitled as of right to deduct the period spent by him in obtaining the certified copy of the order. I thought that much could be said in favour of this other point.

( 11 ) A judgment can be altered or amended or even changed completely without further formality except notice to the parties and a rehearing on the point of change should that be necessary, provided it has not been signed. (See Surendra Singh v. State of U-P. AIR 1954 SC 194 (197) (1) ). I, therefore, fixed the case for rehearing, I have again heard the counsel for the parties. I now proceed to decide finally. S. 68 of the Act of 1920 reads:

"68. Appeal to Court against receiver. If the insolvent or any of the creditors or any other person is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document