AGARWALA, DESAI, V. BHARGAVA, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS case has been referred to this Bench for a decision of the question whether in a Letters patent appeal the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree should be excluded in computing the period of limitation fixed by the Rules of this Court for preferring a letters Patent Appeal. A Full Bench of four Judges of the Allahabad High Court in fazal muhammad v. Phul Kuar, 2 All 192 (A) has to be considered and, if found to lay down incorrect law, has to be overruled. We think in these circumstances it would be advisable that a Bench of five Judgea be constituted in order to decide the case.

( 2 ) WE, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be laid before the Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. Mootham, C. J.

( 3 ) THE question which has been referred to this Bench is whether the time required for obtaining copies of the judgment and. decree appealed from should be excluded in computing the period. of limitation for preferring an appeal fixed by the Rules of this Court under the Letters Patent. The relevant facts are that judgment in two connected second appeals was delivered by Brij mohan Lall J. on 3-10-1950, the learned Judge granting leave to the present appellants to file a further appeal under the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent ceased to have effect from the date upon which the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 came into force, but by virtue of clause 9 of that Order and Article 225 of the Constitution rules with respect to the practice and procedure of the former High Court are applicable to the present Court, and, although not strictly accurate, it is convenient to refer to the Rules which we have to consider as made under the letters Patent. On 11-10-1950, an application was made for a certified copy of the judgment and decree. The copy of the judgment was ready on 22-1-1951, and delivery was taken on the following day. The copy of the decree was not, however, ready until the 5th March and delivery was taken on the 7th March. In the meantime on 21-2-1951, the appeal was presented but was not accompanied by a copy of the Judgment. Paras 2 and 3 of Rule 7 of Chap III of the Rules of court as then in force, read as follows:

"in all appeals under the Letters Patent, a duly stamped memorandum of appeal shall be presented to the Registrar within 60 days and not more from the date of the judgment, unless a judge in his discretion, on good cause shown, shall grant further time for its presentation. The memorandum of appeal need not be accompanied by a copy of the Judgment or decree appealed from".

( 4 ) IN 2 All 192 (A) a Full Bench presided over by Sir Robert Stuart, C. J. , held without stating its reasons, that under the Rules of Practice adopted in 1873 (which provided that the appellant need not file a copy of the judgment appealed from) an appeal under Clause 10, Letters Patent which had been preferred two days after the period of limitation had expired could not be ad-initted. That decision is directly in point and the question is whether it is still good law.

( 5 ) SRI A. K. Kirty for the appellant has advanced two arguments on behalf of the appellant. His first contention is that the rules made by this Court under the Letters Patent constitute a special or local law within the meaning of Section 29 (2), Limitation Act, 1908, and that accordingly the provisions of Section 12 of that Act will apply for the purpose of determining the period of limitation. In the alternative, he contends that the provisions of Section 12, Limitation Act apply to appeals under the Letters Patent proprio vigore.

( 6 ) SECTION 29 (2) as it now stands provides that

"where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document