SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(Ker) 233

Judges : M.MADHAVAN NAIR
Govindan Vijayan - Appellant
Versus
Karambi Parvathy - Respondent
Case No : C. M. P. No. 3364 of 1960 in S. A. No. 666 of 1960
Decided On : 09/22/1960
Advocates Appeared :
K. K. Mathew; For Petitioner P. Vasu; For Respondent

Headnote:

Delay in Filing Second Appeal - Exclusion of Day for Receiving Copy of Decree - The court held that the day notified for appearance of the party to receive the copy of the decree has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the appeal. This interpretation was supported by precedents and the rationale that the law ignores fractions of a day and gives the appellant the benefit of both days, the day on which he applies and the day on which he receives the copy.

Fact of the Case:

The application was to condone the delay in the filing of the Second Appeal. The Superintendent of the Filing Section noted that the appeal would be within time only if the day on which the copy of the decree was notified to be taken by the party is excluded in computing the period of limitation for the appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the day notified for appearance of the party to receive the copy of the decree has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for his filing the appeal from that decree. It must be counted as part of the time requisite for his obtaining the copy of the decree within the meaning of S.12 (2) of the Limitation Act. The court also referred to several precedents to support this finding.

Issues: The issue was whether the day notified for appearance of the party to receive the copy of the decree should be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the law and precedents, which supported the exclusion of the day notified for appearance of the party to receive the copy of the decree in computing the period of limitation for the appeal.

Final Decision: The court held that there was no delay in the institution of the appeal and recorded the petition accordingly.

Judgment :-

1. This is an application to condone the delay in the filing of the Second Appeal.

2. The Superintendent of the Filing Section of this court has made a note that appeal would be within time only if the day on which the copy of the decree was notified to be taken by the party is excluded in computing the period of limitation for the appeal, but not otherwise. In view of this note, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed this application by way of abundant caution with prayer to condone the delay, if any, in the institution of this Second Appeal.

3. I am of the view that the day notified for appearance of the party to take delivery of the copy of the decree has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for his filing the appeal from that decree. It must be counted as part of the time requisite for his obtaining the copy of the decree within the meaning of S.12 (2) of the Limitation Act.

4. The matter is also covered by several precedents. In Raman Chetty v. Kadirvelu, 8 MLJ. 148, where a copy of judgment was applied for on the 27th October and that of the decree on the 28th October and the former copy was ready on the 31st October and the latter on the 2nd November, it was held by a Bench of the Madras High Court that the time in obtaining both the copies had to be reckoned from the 27th October to the 2nd November, and that was counted as 7 days inclusive of both the date of application and the date of delivery of the copy. Ramaseshayya v. Venkatarathnam, AIR. 1938 Mad. 823, observed that it was only "consonant to reason that the day on which the copy is notified to be ready should be excluded."

5. The matter was dealt with elaborately by Vivian Bose, J., (as he then was) in Ramkrishna v. Shrawan, AIR. 1944 Nagpur 356, where the learned judge held:

"The day on which the copies are applied for and the day on which they are delivered are both to be excluded. Why? Because the law takes no account of the fractions of a day. In some eases a copy is delivered the moment the office opens at 10 or 11 in the morning and the appeal is filed the same day. But in other cases, instead of the copy being delivered the first thing it is delivered the last and that gives the appellant no chance of filing the appeal on the same day however diligent he may be. The law ignores all these possibilities. It does not compel the appellant to file the appeal on the same day nor does it require the Courts to determine the exact moment the copy is delivered. Instead it takes no account of the fractions of a day and gives the appellant the benefit of both days, the day on which he applies and the day on which he receives the copy.

6. It follows from these precedents, that the day which was notified for appearance of the party to receive the copy has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the appeal. Admittedly, if that day is excluded the appeal is within time.

7. I hold that there is no delay in the institution of this appeal. The petition is therefore recorded.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top