The period of vacation cannot be excluded as the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment or decree under Section 12 of the Limitation Act. However, in cases where the judgment is delivered on the last working day during the last working hour and the Court remains closed thereafter making it impossible for the aggrieved party to apply for a certified copy of the impugned order during the vacation, the period of limitation should be excluded.

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the order of the District Judge dt. 12-4-1982 by which order the learned District Judge came to hold that the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 60 of 1981 filed before him was barred by limitation.

( 2 ) AGAINST the order of the Munsif, Puri, dt. 16-5-1981, in Miscellaneous Case No. 271 of 1980, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge on 21-7-1981. According to the petitioner's case, the learned Munsif delivered the order in the miscellaneous case during the last hours of 16th of May, 1981 which was the last working day of the Court before Summer Vacation. The Court remained closed from 17-5-1981 to 21-6-1981 and reopened on 22-6-1981. The petitioner filed an application for certified copy of the impugned order on the reopening day, i. e. 22-6-1981 and the copy was ready on 1-7-1981. The copy was delivered to the petitioner on 2-7-1981 and the petitioner filed the appeal on 21-7-1981.

( 3 ) THE short question for consideration is whether the vacation period intervening between the dates of the impugned order and the copy application can be excluded as time requisite within the ambit of S. 12 of the lim. Act or not. The learned District Judge relying on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nanusam v. Sitaram, AIR 1972 Raj 36 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bansi Dhar v. Firm Bajrang Lal Mahabir Pershad AIR 1976 Del 107, has come to hold that the said period cannot be excluded.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the interpretation given by the Delhi High Court and relied upon by the learned District Judge works out undue hardship and since it is not 'possible to apply for certified copy during the vacation, a person, however vigilant he may be, would be deprived of a right of appeal in every case when a judgment is delivered on the last day before the long vacation particularly when such judgment is delivered during the last working hour.

( 5 ) THE two decisions relied upon by the learned District Judge proceed on the basis that S. 12 and S. 4 of the Lim. Act should be strictly construed and on such strict construction there is no scope for engrafting any exception to the rule on the ground of hardship. There is no dispute that on a literal construction of S. 12 of the Lim. Act, the period for which the Court remains closed cannot be excluded as the time requisite for obtaining copy of the judgment or decree. But the matter should be considered from a bigger principle and it is this that no litigant can be deprived of a right conferred on him for no fault of his. A right of appeal is substantive right. A person against whom a judgment is delivered has a right to challenge the same in higher forum but if the Court delivers the judgment on the last working day during the last working hour and then remains closed thereafter making it impossible for the aggrieved party to apply for a certified copy of the impugned order during the vacation and the court reopens after the expiry of the period of limitation provided for appeal, then in such a case, the so-called right of appeal becomes illusory and the party would be deprived of such valuable right. In my view, the provision should be so construed that a substantive right will not be taken away. There is no opposition in this case to the assertion made by the petitioner that the impugned order was delivered on the last working day during the last working hour and it is also not disputed that during the long vacation when the Court remains closed, there is no provision for applying for or obtaining certified copy of the order in civil cases. In such contingency, in ray view, it would be in the ends of justice to construe S. 12 even at the risk of causing violence to the language used in the section and a beneficial construction should be adopted rather than "a literal construction, which has been given by the Rajasthan and Delhi H