Tampering with court record and making interpolations in the dates to bring an appeal within time is impermissible and condoning delay in such matters would tantamount to putting a premium on such malpractices.

This appeal filed on 9.2.98 under Order 43, Rule 1 (d) CPC, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.2.97, passed by Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc Case No. 71 of 1991 arising out of Probate Misc Case No.339 of 1988, thereby rejecting the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, read with section 151 CPC, for setting aside exparte order dated 4.4.89 passed in the aforesaid Probate case.

2. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 3.3.98, when notices were directed to be issued, an interim order was also passed with direction to appellant's counsel to serve by registered post, copies of the appeal memo, application for injunction and also by hand to learned counsel who appeared for the respondent before the lower Court. Accordingly, on 17.3.98 Mr. Roy, for the respondent prayed for the time till 23.3.98, when the counsel for the appellant sought some time in view of the bulky reply filed by the respondent and secondly it was submitted that some allegations have been made against the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and in support of the allegations the copying application No.176/97 has been filed by the respondent as Annexure 13. Appellant filed an affidavit which the respondent wanted to controvert for which time was prayed and granted.

3. In view of the allegations of interpolations made in the copying application for copy, its date of receipt tampering with record, trial Courts record was requisitioned. The record of the copying section makes some shocking revelations. There is tampering with record, it is full of interpolations at places mentioning date and these interpolations, were made solely with a view to gain time, which had already run out for filing an appeal. Merits apart, we have confined the hearing to the question of limitation.

4. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 24.2.97. The application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order was made on 6.3.97, on the same day requisites were notified and supplied by the appellant on 29.3.97 while the copy was ready for delivery on 28.1.98 and delivered on 5.2.98, and the present appeal has been filed on 9.2.98 along with an application for injunction. It is significant to note that there is no mention about the delay, much less any explanation as to why it took almost 13 months for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order dated 24.2.97. The respondent in his application for vacating the stay order has alleged that the appellant managed the ministerial staff of the copying section of the Court of District Judge, Kamrup. In this connection Rule 497 of the Civil Rules and Orders may be referred. If the requisite and folios are not filed within 3 days of the notification in the prescribed manner, copying application is liable to be rejected. In the instant case the requisites were supplied on 29.3.97 while the application was made ready on 6.3.97. Rule 501, 511, 512 and 513 governed the preparation of certified copies, the comparison thereof and finally the delivery of certified copy applied for. The respondent in his application for vacating the stay registered as Misc Case No.79 of 1998 has averred as follows :

"That it is submitted respectfully that the OP/respondent and/or his learned counsel have tampered with the certified copy of the order dated 24.2.97 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati and in fact Shri DK Bhatra had received the certified copy of the impugned order dated 24.2.97 on 26.3.97. But the certified copy as filed by the opposite party/respondent in this Hon'ble Court shows that the certified copy was delivered to Shri DK Bhatra, Advocate for the OP/respondent on 5.2.98..The certified copy of the impugned order dated 24.2.97 also shows that the copy was received by Shri DK Bhatra on 26.3.97, which clearly means beyond reasonable doubt that either the OP/respondent or his learned counsel have tampered with the judicial records and changed the dates and insert