The main legal point established in the judgment is that the question of limitation is a question of jurisdiction and must be addressed by the court when raised, and cannot be ignored.

Heard Mr. A.R. Benerjee, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Miss B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. P.C. Deka, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. R.L. Yadav and Mrs. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal has been brought from the Judgment and decree dated 18.12.97 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Cachar at Silchar in T.A. No. 5/93 reversing the judgment and order dated 20.3.93 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No.2, Cachar at SilcharinT.S. No. 17/1977.

3. Though the Court by order dated 27.7.98 at the time of admission of the Second Appeal accepted the grounds Nos. A, D and E incorporated in the Memo of Appeal as substantial questions of law, this Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, when the matter is taken up for final hearing proposes to formulate precisely the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the First Appellate Court committed the jurisdictional error in admitting and entertaining a time barred appeal ex-parte as a result of which the subsequent impugned judgment and decree has been vitiated."

4. In order to appreciate and answer the substantial question of law formulated above, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in a short compass.

5. The defendants/respondents (for short the 'respondents') filed T.A. No. 5/93 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Cachar at Silchar on 24.6.93 against the judgment and order dated 20.3.93 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge-2, Cachar at Silchar in T.S. No. 17/97 and final decree signed on 17.5.93.

6. Alongwith the Memo of appeal the respondents also filed an application being petition No. 521/93, being supported by an affidavit, stating, inter alia that though the judgment appealed against was passed on 20.3.93, the decree thereof was written and signed only on 17.5.93 and accordingly excluding the time required for getting the certified copy as narrated in the said petition itself, the appeal filed on 24.6.93 against the judgment and decree as mentioned above, maybe accepted to be filed in time and since there was no delay, the appeal was not barred by limitation. It would be convenient if the said petition is extracted herein and the same runs as follows:-

"521/1993.

IN THE COURT OFTHEDISTRICT JUDGE:

CACHAR:SILCHAR

T.A.NO.5OF1993

Md. Makbul All and Others ... Appellants

-Versus-

Sukhamay Paul and Others ... Respondents

That the humble petition of the appellants

abovenamed;

Most respectfully sheweth :-

1. That this appeal has been filed against the judgment of the final decree in T.S. No. 17 of 1977 passed on 20.3.93.

2. That the decree of the said suit was written and signed on 17.5.93 by the court on which date the same was shown to the lawyer to the defendant-appellants as per endorsement made in the decree.

3. That the application for the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree was filed on 26.3.93 and the Judgment was ready for delivery on 2.4.93. The appellants received the same on the following day i.e. on 3.4.93. The estimate for the decree was not given as decree was not drawn.

4. That the decree of the suit was not prepared by that time and as such no application for the copy of the decree was filed till 3.5.93 on which date the defendant-appellants got the information that the decree was being prepared.

5. That in the said circumstances, the defendant-appellant filed petition on 3.5.93 for obtaining certified copy of the decree.

6. That on 18.5.93 there was notification for submission of requisite court fees and Folios and on the following day i.e. on the 19.5.93 stamp and Folios were submitted.

7. That the certified copy of the decree was prepared on 5.6.93 and the applicants received the same on7.6.93.

8. That the decree aforesaid being not prepared for a long time i.e. from 20.3.93 till 17.5.93 the copy of the decree could not be obtained for filing the appeal. In the matter of computation of limitation for the appeal, the said date