SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(All) 7

MOOTHAM, MUKERJI, SRIVASTAVA
BALDEO PERSHAD – Appellant
Versus
DWARIKA PD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMBIKA PRASAD, N.D.OJHA, P.BHARGAVA, Raja Ram Agarwal

MOOTHAM, CJ.

( 1 ) THE question referred to this Bench is

"whether in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court the applicant is entitled to exclude the time taken in obtaining a copy of the judgment appealed from. "

The reference has been made because of a difference of opinion between the former Allahabad high Court and the Oudh Chief Court.

( 2 ) THE relevant provisions of the Indian Limitation Act are Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 12 which read as follows :

" (2) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave, to appeal and an application for a review of judgment the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed shall be excluded. (3) Where a decree is appealed from or sought to be reviewed, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which it is founded shall also be excluded. "

There has been a divergence of opinion among the High Courts as to whether the provisions of sub-section (3) apply in the case of an application for leave












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top