The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time requisite for obtaining copies is the time taken by the applicant using all diligence possible, and any delay caused by the carelessness or negligence of the applicant cannot be excluded from the time requisite.

The question for decision is whether the appeal is filed in time. The judgment of the trial court was pronounced on 21-12-1991. The application for copy was made on 24-12-1991. The copying sheets were called for on 27-1-1992. They were produced on 30-1-1992. The certified copy was ready on 31-3-1992. The date fixed to appear for receipt of copy was 31-3-1992 and it was delivered to the appellant on 31-3-1992 itself. The appeal was filed in this court on 27-6-1992. If we go by the above entries, the appeal was filed on the 92nd day and hence there is a delay in filing this appeal. But, it is con tended on behalf of the appellant that he is entitled to the exclusion of 3 clear days from 27-1-1992 in view of Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice. In other words, he contends that though the copying sheets were called for on 27-1-1992 and he produced them only on 30-1-1992, he does not lose the 2 days in between since he had 3 days time to produce the copying sheets as per Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice and if the said period of 3 days is excluded, his appeal is filed in time.

2. The 'exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree is provided for by S.12(2) of the Limitation Act. S.12(2) of the Limitation Act reads:

"12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded".

The words 'time requisite' has been the subject matter of judicial interpretation in several decisions. The question here is whether the 3 days time provided for by Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice can be taken as the lime requisite within the meaning of S.12(2) of the Limitation Act. Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice reads:

"242. Calling for Stamp papers.-Every day between the hours of 3 and 5 P.M. a list showing the applications in which records have been received and the number of stamp papers required shall be affixed to the notice board of the copying section. Such list shall remain suspended for (three clear working days) in accordance with Rule 6, but, if the last day should fall during a vacation the list shall remain till the day after the re-opening day. Within that time, the applicant shall supply the stamp papers called for, failing which the application shall be struck off".

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the 3 clear days provided for by Rule 242 of the Civil Rules of Practice is included in the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy.

3. As observed by the Privy Council in Pramath Nath Roy v. Lee (49 Indian Appeals 307) "No period can be regarded as requisite under the Act, which need not have elapsed if the appellant had taken reasonable and proper steps to obtain a copy of the decree or order". The question whether the 3 days made available to an applicant to produce the copying sheets without his application for copy being struck out for non-production of sheet., is liable to be excluded is really concluded by a Division Bench decision of this court reported in Kurian Antony v. Chacko Eappen (I.L.R.1961 (1) Ker. 659). Speaking for the Division Bench, His Lordship Mr. Justice Madhavan Nair after considering the submission based on Rule 234 of the Civil Rules of Practice, then governing held:

"The time requisite for obtaining copies is the time which an applicant takes to obtain the copies using all diligence possible on his part. The time taken by the appellant in supplying printing charges after the same was notified to him cannot be said to be time 'necessary' on his part consistent with the diligence expected of him in the matter. The applicant ought to deposit the required charges not later than the firs