The mistake of a counsel's clerk can be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing a certified copy of an order, provided that the appellant has done everything that was required of him to obtain the certified copy in time and that the counsel's clerk has made a bona fide mistake.

( 1 ) ON 11th October, 1972, when S. A. O. 192 of 1972 was taken up for arguments, a contention was raised by Shri Gopal Narain Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the said appeal was barred by limitation. That being so, the learned counsel for the petitioner after obtaining time, filed on applicate (C. M. 1128-J of 1972) under section 38 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein to be called the Act) read with Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act and section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the certified copy of the order of the Additional Rent Controller (herein to be called the Controller ).

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement dated 11th April, 1972, passed by Shri Gian Chand Jain. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. Along with the appeal an application under Order 42, Rule 2 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code was filed seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the order dated 30th October, 1969, passed by the Controller, as also from filing certified copy of grounds of appeal taken before the Tribunal. The submission in the said application was that an application for obtaining certified copy of the order of the controller had been filed with the Copying Agency but that the said copy had not so far been delivered to the petitioner. In the circumstances, exemption from filing the certified copy was claimed. That application was allowed by my order dated 11th July. 1972, when the appeal came up for admission.

( 3 ) CERTIFIED copy of the order passed by the Controller was filed in the Registry on the 8th August, 1972, by Shri Amarjit Singh, Advocate, through a forwarding letter of the aforesaid date.

( 4 ) CONTENTION of Shri G. N. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, is that the certified copy which was required to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal as required by Rule 2-B of Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of the Rules and Order of Punjab High Court, as applicable to this Court, having not been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal, the appeal has become barred by time and is liable to be dismissed as such.

( 5 ) THE impugned judgment was delivered by the Tribunal on 11th April, 1972. The appeal, therefore, could be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the said judgment as prescribed by section 39 (1) of the Act. From the certified copy of the judgment filed along with the memorandum of appeal, it transpires that the copy of the impugned judgment was applied for on 19th April, 1972, and was attested and delivered on 9th June, 1972. Therefore, a period of 52 days was taken for procuring the certified copy of the impugned judgment, being the period requisite for obtaining copy of the impugned judgment, which period the appellant is entitled to add to the period of limitation to be computed for filing the appeal. In other words, the appeal shall be within limitation if filed within a period of 112 days from the date of impugned judgment. It is a settled law that the date on which the judgment is delivered is not to be counted towards the period of limitation. The period of 112 days has to be computed from 12th April, 1972, which expired on 1st August, 1972. There is no dispute that if the appeal had been filed by 1st August, 1972, other requirements of law being complied with, the appeal would have been within limitation. In the instant case, the appeal was filed on 10th July, 1972, i. e. , well within the period of limitation.

( 6 ) THE appeal came up for admission on the 11th July, 1972, and, as already noted earlier C. M. 690 of 1972 was filed under Order 42, Rule 2, read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code praying that filing of the certified copy of the order of the Controller dated the 30th October, 1969, be dispensed with for the present. This application was accepted by me vide order dated the 11th July, 1972. However, certified copy of the order of th