The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether under S.12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with the explanation the appellant is entitled to exclude the time commencing from the date of judgment till signing of the decree prior to his application for a copy thereof in computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal.

2. The appellant State of Assam was a defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of the Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi. The suit was for realisation of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- being the value of the goods seized by the Superintendent of Supply, Hailakandi and also compensation for loss and expenditure incurred by him in defending criminal cases instituted against him in respect of the illegal seizure.

3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, who is a grocer, was that he had a shop and godown wherein he stored 12 bags of Atta, 13 bags of Sugar, 1 bag of Moida (flour) and 5 bags of Suji. On 13-8-73 the defendant, Superintendent of Supply, Hailakandi, in his capacity as an official of the Government, seized the said commodities from the possession of the plaintiff for his alleged failure to display the chart of prices thereof. A case was instituted against him with the police. The case was investigated by the police and a charge-sheet was submitted under S.114 (ii)(a)(b)of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. The trial was conducted by the Magistrate which ended in acquittal of the plaintiff on 25-3-74. The value of the seized commodities was also ordered to be returned to him. The State filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of acquittal. The appeal was dismissed and the order of acquittal was upheld.

4. Thereafter, the defendant State of Assam returned only Rs. 3,674.75 on 23-3-80 out of the purchase value of the commodities which was claimed to be Rs. 8910/-. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- being the balance purchase value of the goods seized by the Supply officials, compensation for loss and expenditure incurred in defending himself in the criminal cases. The case was contested by the defendant. On consideration of the evidence and material adduced by the parties, the learned Munsiff by his judgment dt. 23-12-81 held that the plaintiff was entitled to relief as regards his claim for balance purchase value of the seized commodities including compensation at the rate of 25% of the perchase value, in all amounting to Rs. 7462.75. The claim for reimbursement of expenditure incurred in defending criminal cases was not allowed. The stilt was decreed accordingly with proportionate cost.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Munsiff, the State of Assam preferred an appeal before the Assistant District Judge No.1, Silchar. As the appeal was found to be barred by limitation, a notice was served on the respondent-plaintiff who entered appearance through his advocate. The case of the State before the Assistant District Judge was the time taken by the Court to prepare the decree before an application for copy thereof was made should be included as time requisite for obtaining the copy and limitation should be computed accordingly. Reliance was placed on a decision of a single Bench of this Court in S.K. Tangkhul v. W. Tangkhul, reported in AIR 1973 Gauhati 60. The learned Assistant District Judge, however, observed that the said judgment was not applicable to the facts of the case. The appeal was filed beyond time: without any prayer for condonation of delay. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed as being barred by limitation.

6. The State of Assam has come up in appeal before this Court against the aforesaid judgment. The contention of the counsel for the State Shri K.K. Mahanta is that this case is squarely covered by the single Bench decision of this Court in S.K. Tangkhul (AIR 1973 Gauhati 60) (supra). The counsel submits that in view of the explanation to S.12(2) of the Limitati