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

1981 Supreme(Raj) 144

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.K.Mal Lodha
VISHWANATH - Appellant
Versus
DHANRAJ - Respondent
Civil Second Appeal 239 Of 1971
Decided On : 11/05/1981

Advocates Appeared:
D.S.Shishodia, M.R.Bhansali, N.P.Gupta

When the copies of the judgment and decree are ready, the succeeding days which are holidays should be included in the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the decree appealed against, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation.

Headnote:

LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 12(2) - INTERPRETATION - TIME REQUISITE FOR OBTAINING COPIES - HOLIDAYS - EXCLUSION - APPEAL FILED WITHIN TIME.

Fact of the Case:

The defendant-appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Gangapur, which was dismissed as barred by time by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhilwara. The defendant-appellant had applied for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree on October 10, 1969, and the copies were ready on October 17, 1969. The copies were delivered on October 21, 1969, and the appeal was filed on October 22, 1969.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appeal was filed within time, as the period from October 18, 1969, to October 20, 1969, which were holidays, should be included in the time requisite for obtaining the copies within Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issues: Whether the appeal was filed within time, considering the holidays between the date the copies were ready and the date they were delivered.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and held that when the copies of the judgment and decree were ready, the succeeding days which were holidays should also be included in the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the decree appealed against. Therefore, the appeal, which was filed within 40 days, was within limitation.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhilwara, and remanded the appeal for disposal in accordance with law to the District Judge, Bhilwara.

Judgment


S. K. MAL LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal under Section 100, C. P. C. against the judgment and decree dated August 13, 1970 of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhilwara. The Munsif, Gangapur by his judgment dated Sep. 12, 1969 decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 1520/- consisting of Rs. 1290/- as principal and Rs. 230/- as interest with costs against the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant preferred an appeal on October 22, 1969. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned order dated August 13, 1970, dismissed the appeal holding it to be barred by time. Hence, defendant-appellant has preferred this second appeal.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. N. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. R. Bhansali for the respondent.

( 3 ) THE only question that arises for determination is whether the learned Senior Civil Judge was right in dismissing the appeal as barred by time.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif, Gangapur gave Judgment on Sept. 12, 1969. The defendant applied for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree on Oct. 10, 1969. The date fixed for the issuance of the copies was Oct. 17, 1969. The copies were ready on October 17, 1969. It appears from the endorsement made on the copies that the copies were delivered on October 21, 1969. The appeal was filed on October 22, 1969. The learned Senior Civil Judge has held that it is barred by one day. The defendant had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the Act herein) supported by his affidavit for condoning one days delay. The reasons given by the defendant in the application for condoning the delay were not accepted by the learned Senior Civil Judge and he was of the opinion that the delay of one day in presenting the appeal cannot be condoned. In view of the conclusion to which I have arrived at, it is not necessary to examine the reasons given by the learned Senior Civil Judge for holding that the appeal was barred by one day and that the delay cannot be condoned. The copy was ready on October 17, 1969. Under Section 12 (2), the appellant is entitled to the exclusion of the day when the judgment was pronounced, as well as the time requisite for obtaining one copy of the decree appealed against. The appeal was filed within 40 days. The period from Oct. 10, 1969, (the date when the application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree was made) to Oct. 17, 1969, (the date on which the copies were ready) is 8 days. Oct. 18, 1969 to Oct. 20, 1969 were holidays. This has also been stated by the defendant-appellant in the application dated Jan. 8, 1970, which was supported by his affidavit. The copies were taken delivery of on Oct. 21, 1969, as is clear from the endorsement made on the the copies themselves. The question is whether when the copies were ready on Oct. 17, 1969, three days from Oct. 18, 1969 to Oct. 20, 1969 which were holidays are to be included in the time requisite for obtaining the copies within Section 12 (2) of the Act, If the period from Oct. 18, 1969 to Oct. 20, 1969 (both days inclusive) is included in the period, time requisite for obtaining the certified copies along with the period from Oct. 10, 1969 to Oct. 17, 1969, the appeal, which was filed on Oct. 22, 1969 is within time. In my opinion, when the copies were ready on Oct. 17, 1969, the succeeding days from Oct. 18, 1969 to Oct. 20, 1969 which were holidays should also be included in the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the decree appealed against. In other words in computing the period of limitation besides the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, period from Oct. 10, 1969 to Oct. 20, 1969 which is time requisite for obtaining copies should be excluded. If the day or days succeeding the day on which the copies were ready for delivery are holidays, such a day or days are to be excluded for computing the period of limitation, if the delivery is taken on the next day. Refe



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top