Time taken in obtaining copy of the order to be included for calculating period of limitation.

The revision is against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam dated 29. 1995 in I.A.No.427 of 1993 in unnumbered C.M.A.No. of 1993.

.2. The petitioner in his petition contends as follows:In the suit filed against the petitioner, temporary injunction has been granted by the trial Court against the petitioner. The petitioner has instructed his advocate to file an appeal against the said order. The advocate informed him that he would inform the petitioner as soon as gets copy of the order. But, no communication has been received from the advocate. When contacted, the advocate informed him that he has sent a letter. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for copy and filed the appeal. There is a delay of 10 days. The delay is not wilful. It may be condoned.

3. The respondent in his count contends as follows:The allegation that the advocate informed the petitioner that he had already applied for copies, and informed him that he would write in due course is to be proved by him. The further allegation mat the advocate informed him that he has written a letter and that he has not received the said letter is not correct. There is delay in filing the copy application itself to get an order copy. The delay is more than ten days. It has not been properly explained. The application is therefore liable to be dismissed.

4. On the above pleadings, the learned Sub Judge held an enquiry and gave a finding that the petitioner has not given a satisfactory explanation for the delay and dismissed the said application. As against the said order, this revision is preferred.

.5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has argued that the learned Sub Judge has dismissed his application for condoning the delay relying upon the decision of the Court in C.M.P,No.l5518 of 1991, dated 22. 1992 in which, this Court has held that if the application for the copy of the judgment and decree itself was made after the expiry of the period of limitation, there is no scope at all under Sec.12 of the Limitation Act for inclusion of the time taken for obtaining the said copy while computing the period of limitation and therefore, the application filed belatedly is liable to be dismissed since the applicant in the I.A., has applied for copy of the order after the expiry of the period of limitation fixed for it viz., after one month. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, this finding of the learned Sub Judge is erroneous since the Full Bench of this Court has held in the decision reported in The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) BHEL, Ranipet v. M.G.Sampathkumar and another, 1993 T.L.N.J. 401 that even when the copy application for certified copies of the judgment and decree is filed beyond the period prescribed for appeal, Sec.5 can be invoked for condonation of delay in filing an appeal provided sufficient cause is shown and therefore, when the petitioner contends that the advocate had informed him that he would write a letter soon after getting the copy and asserts that he has written a letter while in fact, he has not received any letter from the advocate, there is sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for preferring the application to condone the delay and therefore, the order of the Subordinate Judge should be set aside. The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner no doubt provides that Sec.5 of the. Limitation Act does not prohibit any appellant/applicant to file an application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay even if he has applied and obtained certified copies of the judgment and decree after the prescribed period of limitation. In all cases, what is to be decided is whether sufficient cause has been shown or not. We cannot ignore this portion of the order of the Full Bench which contemplated that what is to be decided is whether sufficient cause has been shown or not. In the case on hand, the cause shown by the p