1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15-6-1996 passed by Addl. District Judge, Srinagar where under learned Addl. District Judge had returned a finding that the time required for obtaining a copy of the judgment and decree appealed against has been computed towards the computation of time and on returning such a finding, he has held that the appeal is not barred by limitation, but is within time.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order on the ground that the judgment and decree which has been appealed against before the 1st. appellate court was passed on 27-12-1995 and the decree on 31 -12-1995. The appellants who were aggrieved of the said order which has been passed by the court below after a prolonged litigation pending between the parties filed the appeal before the 1st appellate court and the said appellate court without looking to the merits of Order41 Rule 3 Civil P.C. and that finding that the appeal is within time, had passed orders, where under the usufructs of the decree and judgment passed in favour of the petitioner have been denied to him and have been stayed.

3. Mr. Zahoor submits that as per amended Civil procedure Code, the provisions of Order 41 Sub Rule 3-A of Civil P.C. provides:

"(1) When an appeal is presented after the expiry of period of limitation specified therefor, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellants relies to satisfy the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.

Sub-Rule(3) of Rule 3-A further makes out that:

"Where an application has been made under sub-rule(1), the Court shall not make an order for the stay of execution of the decree against which the appeal is proposed to be filed so long as the court does not, after hearing under Rule 11, decide to hear the appeal."

4. Thus, Mr. Zahoor wants to impress upon this court that prima facie the judgment and decree which was passed in the month of December 1995 and against the said judgment and decree, appeal was filed before the 1st. Appellate Court on 22-4-1996, is palpably beyond the period of limitation and there is no petition required by the appellant for condonation of delay and in case any petition to that effect would have been moved no orders of stay would have been passed unless and until notice was not given to the other party i.e the petitioner before me and it was only after hearing the petitioner that the orders for stay of execution or otherwise would have been passed. So the contention of Mr. Shah rather pre-supposed that the appeal was prima facie barred by limitation and as such, should not have been entertained, not to speak of passing any effective orders.

5. Mr. Shah further submits that ordinarily the appeal is to be preferred within ninety days from the date of judgment and decree and in case any person has preferred an appeal beyond the prescribed period under the statute, he has to make out a case that his appeal is within time and in case he wants condonation of delay, he has to make a separate application to that effect. He has further submitted that even for computation of period of limitation, the appellants should have moved a petition before court or atleast made a mention in their memo of appeal as to how and in what way they are computing the period of limitation and in what manner they are to get benefit of Section 12 and explanation thereto for computation of the period of limitation. The fact that the respondents have not done that, their appeal was incompetent and the orders passed thereon by the Appellate Court, staying the execution on the date of motion of the appeal has caused grievance to the.petitioner and, as such, he has come up in this revision petition, against the said order.

6. I had the occasion to hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and also to go through the records of the case.

7. It is an admitted fact that the judgment and appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document