WALI ULLAH, SANKAR SARAN, JJ.

( 1 ) THESE are two connected applications for leave to appeal to the Federal Court under Order 45, rule 2, Civil P. C. One is by the plaintiffs and the-other by the defendants. Both these applications arise out of Suit No. 66 of 1936 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge of Aligarh for recovery of a certain sum of money. The suit was contested by the defendants who claimed a set off and damages etc. , to the extent of about Rs. 28,000/ -. Eventually the learned Civil Judge dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs but decreed the claim of defendant 1, R. C. Sharma, viz. , the applicant before us in F. C. A. No. 9 of 1947, for Rs. 24,817-8-9 together with pendente lite and future interest at Rs. 6/- per cent. per annum with costs. Against the decree passed by the learned civil Judge the plaintiffs filed F. A. No. 396 of 1941 in this Court which was valued at Rs. 31,472-12-0 (later it appears that this sum was raised to Rs. 35,000/-) and defendant l filed cross-objections which were valued at Rs. 3000/- only. On 21-2-1947, this Court partly allowed the appeal but dismissed the cross-objections with the result that in substitution of the decree passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge the High Court passed a decree for Rs. 4,447-9-3 in favour of defendant l with pendents lite and future interest at a certain rate.

( 2 ) IT appears that a draft decree prepared by the office was amended and the decree of this Court was actually signed only on 17-10-1947. The plaintiffs application for leave to appeal to the federal Court i. e. , F. C. A. No. 23 of 1947 was filed on the list of December 1947. The decision of the question whether this application was filed within time depends entirely on the interpretation which is to be put on the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" as it occurs in Section 12, Limitation Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. It appears that there is great divergence of judicial opinion between this Court on the one hand and some other Highs Courts in India, viz. , the Calcutta High Court, the Bombay High court, the Patna High Court and the Chief Court of Oudh, on the other, in regard to the proper interpretation of the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" in Section 12, Limitation act. Our attention has been invited to two Full Bench decisions of our own Court reported in parbati v. Bhola, 12 ALL. 79 : (1890 A. W. N. 25), a decision of three learned Judges of this court; and Bechi v. Ahsan Ullah Khan, 12 ALL. 46l: (l890 A. W. N. 149 F. B.), a decision of four learned Judges of this Court.

( 3 ) SIMILARLY we have been referred to the cases of Murlidhar v. Motilal, A. I. R. (24) 1937 Bom. 162 : (I. L. R. (1937) Bom. 443 F. B.), Bani Madhub v. Matungini Dassi, 13 Cal. 104 (F. B.), gabriel Christian v. Chandra Mohan, A. I. R. (23) 1936 Pat. 45 : (15 Pat. 284 F. B.) and three cases decided by the Oudh Chief Court, viz. , Yusuf Ali Khan v. Mohammad Kazim Ali Khan, a. I. R. (27) 1940 Oudh 173 : (15 Luck. 376), Kallu Mal v. Municipal Board, Nawabganj, A. I. R. (29) 1942 Oudh 392 : (200 I. C. 608) and Jodubir Singh v. Sheo Naresh Singh, A. I. R. (31) 1944 oudh 154 : (19 Luck. 456 ).

( 4 ) IN view of the general importance of the question involved we consider it. desirable that the point of the proper interpretation of the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" as it occurs in S. 12, Limitation Act, be referred to a larger Bench of at least five learned Judges of this Court. We accordingly direct that the papers be laid before the Honble the Chief Justice for constitution of the Bench. Opinion of the Full Bench malik, C. J.

( 5 ) THE point for determination by this Full Bench is whether an appellant is entitled to have the period taken in preparation of a decree or formal order deducted from the period of limitation fixed for an appeal even if he has not filed an application for a copy of the decree or formal order.

( 6 ) THE fact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document