JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J.—This second appeal by the defendant has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court on account of certain observations made by Bhandari J in Guman vs. Laxman (ILR 11 Raj. 913) and some conflict of judicial opinion on the point.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of the case are these. A suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money was decreed by Munsif Bikaner on 30th May 1962. The court remained open upto 3rd June, 1962 and closed for the vacation from 4th June, 1962 to 1st July, 1962. It reopened on 2nd July, 1962. The defendant filed an application for copy of the judgment and decree on 2nd July, 1962. He presented an appeal unaccompanied by copies of the judgment and decree on 3-7-1962. On 19-7-62 copies of judgment and the decree were delivered to him which he presented in the appeal. The appeal was thus taken to have been properly presented on 19-7 62. It was rightly dismissed as time barred by the learned Civil Judge. Against this dismissal the present second appeal has been filed.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the period of the vacation from 4-6 62 to 1-7-62 should be included in the period requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree.

4. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Beharidass vs. Jagdish (1) that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree cannot refer to any period antecedent to the appellants filing an application for copy and hence he is not entitled to the exclusion of any time that may have been taken in preparation of the decree prior to his making an application for the copy. The attention of the learned single Judge was not drawn to this Division Bench authority. Bhandari J. referred to this very case in Guman vs. Laxman and on the basis of it gave the decision He held that u/sec. 12(2) of the Limitation Act, time requisite for obtaining a copy cannot refer to any period antecedent to the appellants filing an application for copy. In that case judgment was pronounced on the last working day before the vacation, namely 31-5-52 and it was in this context that the observations made by him are to be read. They are not applicable to the present case where four working days intervened between the delivery of the judgment and the closing of the court for vacation.

5. Recently a similar case was considered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwan Swarup vs. Municipal Board. Ujhani—F.B. (2). The relevant sections of the Indian Limitation Act are secs.4 and 12. They are reproduced below:

4. "Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the Court re-opens.

Explanation—A Court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day.

12. "(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded.

(3) Where a decree or order is appealed from or sought to be revised or where an application is made for leave to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which the decree or order is founded shall also be excluded,

(4) In computing the period of limitation for an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

Explanation — In computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document