Bapna, J.—The appellant brought a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Pratap-garh, for a declaration that he was the Mahant of Vairagis of Pratapgarh and in that capacity was entitled to claim certain dues from the defendants on the occasions of certain ceremonies mentioned in the plaint. He also claimed Rs. 10/- on account of the Bhandara of the father of defendant No. 1, which according to the plaintiff had been wrongly realised by the defendants Nos. 2 to 5. All the defendants except Jugaldas denied the claim. Jugaldas, defendant No. 3, admitted being liable for Rs. 10/-10 the plaintiff. The court passed a decree against Jugaldas for Rs. 10/-but dismissed the entire suit against the rest of the defendants, The plaintiff, thereupon, filed an appeal before the District Judge of Pratapgarh but it was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal and it is contended that the view of law taken by the learned District Judge is not correct.

2. The relevant dates are as follows : —

Date of judgment of the Civil Judge ... 5th March, 1949.

Date of signature on the decree by the Civil Judge... 10th March, 1949.

Date of application by appellant for copies of judgment and decree ... 12th March, 1949.

Date on which copies were ready for delivery of which the appellant had notice...16th April, 1949.

Date of delivery of copies... 20th April, 1949.

Date of presentation of appeal before the District Judge... 16th June, 1949.

The court of the District Judge was closed from 15th May, 1949 to 15th June, 1949, as 15th May was Sunday and there were Summer Vacations from 16th May to 15th June, 1949.

3. Under Art. 152 of the Limitation Act, the period prescribed for filing an appeal from the decree of the court of a Civil Judge to the court of a District Judge is 30 days and the time is stated to begin from the date of the decree or order appealed from.

4. After excluding the period from the date of the application for copies of the judgment and decree i.e., the 12th March, 1949, till the date when copies were ready for delivery under notice to the appellant i.e., the 16th of April, I949> which comes to 36 days, the limitation for filing the appeal from the date of the decree expired on the 10th of May, I949, and the appeal which was filed on 16th of June would obviously be barred by time. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the period from the date of judgment till the preparation of decree, which comes to 5 days, should also be considered 10 be included in the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree, and in that case, the limitation for appeal would expire on the 15th of May which was a holiday and the appeal which was filed on the re-opening of the court on the 16th of June, 1949, was within time. The sole point for determination, therefore, is whether the period from the date of judgment till the date when the decree is drawn up and signed should be included in the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the decree. The case came up in a single Bench but was referred to a Division Bench as there was divergence of opinion among the High Courts in India and no decision of this court on the point was cited. The Calcutta, Bombay and Patna High Courts have taken the view that the period occupied in preparation of a decree should be included in the iime requisite for obtaining a copy. The Allahabad view is that any time spent in the preparation of a decree prior to the date when the appellant applies for a copy of a decree, is not time requisite for obtaining a copy under sec. 12 of the Limitation Act.

5. The leading case of the Calcutta High Court is Bani Madhub vs. Matun-gini Dassi, 13 Cal. 104 (F. B.). It was conceded by the Full Bench that whatever might be the day on which the actual signature was made, the date of the decree, for all purposes, was to be the date on which the judgment was pronounced, but in interpreting the words "the time requisite for obt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document