Rule 144 of the General Rules (Criminal) 1952 requires the court to fix a definite date for the delivery of the copy and intimate the applicant. Failure to comply with the rule entitles the applicant to the exclusion of time.

DAVE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by Mangilal applicant against the order of the district Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated the 16th of October 1956 dismissing his appeal on the ground of limitation.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to it are that the petitioner had filed an application in the court of the Magistrate First Class, Jodhpur, under Section 12 of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for restoration of electric connection which was said to have been cut off by the other party. This application having been dismissed on 8th June 1956, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Magistrate, Jodhpur. The appeal was filed on 14th of July 1956. The appellant sought to exclude the period between 14th June 1956 when he bad presented an application for copy of the Magistrates order and 7th of July 1956 when the copy was actually delivered to him. If this period were excluded, the appeal would have been perfectly within time. This position is not contested even by learned counsel for the opposite party.

( 3 ) IT has, however, contended by the opposite party in the appellate Court that 21st June 1956 was given to the appellant for supplying the copy. The copy was not ready on that day and so it was not given to him. The copy was ready on 3rd july, 1956 but the petitioner took its delivery on 7th July 1956. According to learned counsel for non-petitioner, the period between 3-7-1956 and 7-7-1956 could not be excluded because the appellant ought to have been present in the court on 3-7-1956 and obtained the copy. This argument found favour with the appellate Court,

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has urged in this Court that it was the duty of the trial Court to affix a notice on the notice board of the Court to inform the petitioner by what time the copy would be ready and that since this was not done, he was entitled to get exclusion of the period between 3-7-1956 and 7-7-1956. In support of his argument, he has relief on the rules framed by this Court. The judgment of the learned District Magistrate shows that this argument was advanced before him as well, but it was dismissed on the ground that General rules (Civil) 1952 were applicable only to the Civil Courts subordinate to the High court and not to the Magistrates. It appears that the attention of the learned district Magistrate was not drawn to Rule 144 of the General Rules (Criminal)1952. It runs as follows: "144. (1) A definite date not ordinarily exceeding seven days ahead shall be fixed for the delivery of the copy and intimated to the applicant. The copy, as far as possible, snail be delivered on the date, so fixed. (2) If for any reason, the copy is not ready for delivery on the date so fixed, the applicant shall be directed to attend on another date, when the copy may be expected to be ready for deli-very. (3) If the copy is not ready and the applicant does not appear On the date fixed, notice of the next date fixed for the delivery of copy shall be sent to him by post, if he has deposited the necessary postal charges. If necessary postal charges have not been deposited, it shall be affixed on the notice board of the Court.

( 5 ) THIS rule corresponds to Rule 234 of the General Rules (Civil) 1952 and is worded in exactly the same language. Rule 2 of the General Rules (Criminal) says that these rules will apply to all proceedings and matters in all criminal Courts subordinate to the High Court and, therefore, it was not correct on the part of the learned District Magistrate to say that there were no rules on the point involved in this matter or that he or the Subordinate Magistrates were not bound by these rules a perusal of Rule 144 would show that whenever an application for a copy is made, a definite date, not ordinarily exceeding seven days must be fixed for the delivery of the copy and it should be intimated to the applicant. The rule further enjoins that so far as possible, the copy must be deli