1. The Registry/Stamp Reporter has raised an objection about the competence of the appeal, pointing out that the appeal is time barred by 41 day. On perusal of the calculation made by the Stamp Reporter, it transpires that while calculating the delay aforesaid, the Office has not given deduction of the entire period spent in obtaining the certified copy viz. 02.05.2013 to 18.06.2013, more particularly for the period after 09.05.2013, as according to the Office, the certified copy was ready on 09.05.2013; the due date for delivery of the copy.

2. The endorsement in terms of Rule 234 of General Rules (Civil), 1986 exhibited on certified copy of the order dated 30.04.2013 runs as under:-

Mr. V.L. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the calculation of the delay as made by the Registry is incorrect. He submitted that the Office has not given deduction of the days lapsed after preparation of the certified copy viz. 09.05.2013 upto the date of receipt of the same i.e. 18.06.2013. He contended that admittedly, the notice intimating the fact that the copy is ready had not been issued, and until and unless the notice in this regard, as contemplated under Rule 240 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 is issued, the period lapsed between the date of filing of the application for obtaining copy and the date of receipt of the certified copy is required to be excluded. He further asserted that though Rule 239 of the Rules, 1986 enjoins upon the Copying Department to intimate the definite date, but there is no such practice or mechanism to intimate the due date, when the copy will be ready.

3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Thanvi, has filed his own affidavit, indicating therein that he had applied for obtaining certified copy of the order dated 30.04.2013 on 02.05.2013 and while applying the same, the Copying Section of the Tribunal below had not intimated him the expected date of preparation of the copy. He further emphasized that there is no procedure, practice or system in the Tribunal below or Sub-ordinate Courts, even by the Registry of this Court to intimate the applicant about the date when the copy will be kept ready. It will not be out of place to reproduce the contents of the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant:-

“That for obtaining the certified copy of the decision dated 30.04.2013. I applied for the same on 02.05.2013. On 02.05.2013 the office of issuing the certified copy did not give any particular date of preparation of the certified copy and when it was likely to be prepared. But subsequently when I found that the date of issuance of the certified copy was given on 09.05.2013 and it was prepared on that very day by the office but this I could now only on 18.06.2013 when I went to know as to whether the applied copy is ready or not. So far the notice of copy prepared, was not at all issue in this duration. However, I could obtain the copy on 18.06.2013 and the appeal was fined by me on 16.09.2013 as per the instruction of my client.”

4. Without prejudice to his stand that the appeal has been filed within the prescribed time, if calculated properly, he submitted that as an abundant caution, he has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay and prayed that the delay, if any, be condoned.

5. Per-contra, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue involved/ sought to be agitated by Mr. Thanvi, is squarely covered by Full Bench decision dated 24.07.2015 rendered in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.646/2011 titled as Om Prakash V. Smt. Shashi & Anr., wherein this Court upholding and approving the view taken by a Division Bench in case of Suresh Kumar Sharma V. Idol Laxmanji Maharaj, reported in 1973 RLW 160, has held as under:-

“23. We have discussed in detail the various facts of these Rules above and for avoiding reputation, we would like to mention tha