G.M. LODHA, J.—A reference has been made by Honble single Judge on 16th July, 1981 mentioning that there is a conflict of opinion between two single Bench Judgments of this court and, therefore, it is necessary that the conflict must be resolved by the larger Bench. The two decisions referred to relates to interpretation of Rules 234 and 235 of the General Rules (Civil) of Rajasthan. The first judgment is in Suresh Kumar Sharma vs. Idol Laxmanji Maharaj (1) and the second decision is of Mool Chand Soni vs. Virendra Kumar. (2).

2. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. U.N. Bhandari has appeared for the respondent and submitted that the view taken by this court in Mool Chand Soni vs. Virendra Kumar (supra) is correct and should be approved by this Bench now.

3. It would be proper to mention the facts mentioned in the reference order in order to appreciate the controversy raised and the genesis of the dispute, which have given rise to this reference.

4. A Judgment and decree passed by Munsif Magistrate Ajmer City (West), Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 234/72 became the subject matter of appeal in the district court. The decree was passed on 11.12.1974. The appellant submitted an application for obtaining certified copy of the Judgment and decree of the trail court vide application dated January 3, 1975. The certified copy was not ready on 4.1.1975 as the date fixed for giving copy was 4.1.1975 and no further date for collecting the copy was intimated for notified. The certified copy of the decree was then ready on January 9, 1975 and a notice with regard to the certified copy being ready for delivery was put on the notice board on January 10, 1975. The certified copy was collected by the appellant on January 25, 1975 and the appeal was filed on 31st January, 1975.

5. The appellants contention was that he was entitled to the exclusion of the time from January 10, 1975 to January 25, 1975 for the reason that no notice under Rule 234 of the General Rules (Civil) notifying the next date for collecting the certified copy was issued and that the notice that was put on the notice board on January 10, 1975 was a notice issued under Rule 235 of the General Rules (Civil) and therefore, this notice cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. This view find support from the judgment in Suresh Kumar Sharmas case (supra), but Mr. Bhandari learned counsel for the respondent submits that Suresh Kumars case is not applicable in the present case.

6. According to Mr. Bhandari, once it is notified that the copy is ready under Rule 235 of the General Rules (Civil) then the earlier compliance of Rule 234 even if not made cannot be taken advantage of by the litigant who had applied for copy because once notice is put on the notice board it must be presumed that the litigant becomes aware of it and the earlier non-compliance, the lapses of the offices became immaterial so far as computation for limitation for the purpose of exclusion of time requisite in obtaining the copy u/s 12 of the Limitation Act is concerned.

7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the above submissions and have also carefully gone through the above two decisions in addition to the earlier decision of Mangi Lalas vs. Sita Ram (3).

8. Before we propose to deal in details the question of conflict, we must mention at the very out set that the plea of limitation and the law regarding the litigants from filing an appeal or resort to an remedy under the law on account of expiry of limitation falls in the demane of a law, which courtails or in any case regulares legal rights of the person to seek remedy against the wrong. This branch of law also is assential in order to remove uncertainty about the fate of litigation. Even then it cannot be list-singht of that in interpreting the rules or provisions of Limitation Act. The court should not normally take stringent view to debar the litigants and deprive the ditiaena from resorting to leg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document