A party cannot rely on a certified copy of a document obtained by another person to overcome the limitation period for filing an appeal, especially when the document was not meant for the party and the settlement had become absolute against the party on the expiry of the limitation period.

The respondent No. 4 in Civil Rule No. 3100 of 1993 has brought this appeal from the judgment dated 14.12.93 passed by the learned Single Judge (SN Phukan, J) allowing the writ petition of respondent No. 1.

2. Respondent No. 3 (the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of Tinsukia) published tender notice for settlement of country liquor shops for the term 1993-96. The appellant, the respondent No .1 and some others submitted tenders for country liquor shop No. 4. The Deputy Commissioner cum-Collector by order dated 20.2.93, settled that liquor shop with respon­dent No. 1 (the writ petitioner). Against that settlement order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent 1 o. 2 (the Assam Board of Revenue) after expiry of the period for appeal. The Board admitted the appeal on 13.5.93. Thereafter by a letter No. TEX. 160/93/9 dated 18th June, 1993, the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia informed the respondent No. 1 that the appellant before the Board never applied for certified copy of the settlement order dated 20.2.93 in respect of Makum Junction Country Liquor Shop No. 4 and that no copy was delivered to him. By letter No. TEX. 230/ 93 dated 29.7.93, the Deputy Commissioner also informed respondent No. 2 that the appellant never applied for certified copy of settlement order and, therefore, furnishing para wise comment an the appeal petition did not arise. A copy of this information dated 29.7.93 was forwarded to the Government Pleader for taking necessary action. In the wake of this information, respon­dent No. 1 raised preliminary objection to the Board's admission of the appeal, After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Board by order dated 14.12.93 repelled the objection and directed the Deputy Commissioner to send para-wise comment. In short, the Board's order was this :

"The certified copy of the order appealed against, whether obtained by the appellant by applying for the same himself or otherwise, will suffice, provided it as a genuine one. Ask Deputy Commissioner to send para wise comment."

3. Respondent No. 1 then brought the said writ petition ^Civil Rule No. 3100 of 1993) for quashing the order dated 14.12.93 and also the appeal which was pending before the Board. On 19.10.93 this Court issued notice of motion. On appearance of the appellant, who was respondent in the writ petition, the notice of motion was heard before the Single Judge.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 argued by relying on two decisions : (i) Musst Majidan vs. Dalmir Khan, AIR 1951 Punjab 388; (ii) Union of India vs. M/s IG Tobacco, AIR 1966 MP 52.

The learned Single Judge did not accept his contention and held that these decisions did not apply. The learned Judge held that in view of Rule 211 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, it is necessary to prevent benami transaction in the settlement of country liquor shops. Thus, he held that the appellant must file a certified copy which was obtained by himself. Being of that view the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the Board's admission order and also quashed the appeal which was pending before it.

5. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel, who appeared for respondent No. 4 in Civil Rule No. 3100 of 1993 before the Single Judge also appeared for him before us in this appeal and reiterated his reliance on the same decisions, namely, AIR 1951 Punjab 388 and AIR 1966 MP 52. In AIR 1951 Punjab 388, the learned Judge observed that copies were always applied for by Advocate's clerk; the applications were never signed by Advocate, pleader or the client or his authorised agent and held that a copy which had been obtained by a person other than the appellant and is then used by the appellant for the purpose of riling an appeal, does give right to the appellant under section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act to deduct the time taken in obtaining that copy. In AIR 1966 MP 52, the respondent obtained the certified co