Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 does not extend or enlarge the period of limitation, while Sections 12 and 14 provide for the extension of the period of limitation.

VERMA, J. :- This application in revision came up for hearing before Oak, C. J. and S. N. Singh, J. They have referred it to a Full Bench because of a conflict between two Division Benches of this Court- Siyadat-un-nissa v. Muhammad Mahmud, (1897) ILR 19 All 342 and Mukat Beharilal Agarwal v. Addl. District Magistrate Bareilly, AIR 1959 All 699.

2. The question involved in the case is one of limitation and it arises in this way. The applicant Bhagwan Swarup filed a suit against the opposite parties for the recovery of Rs. 600 by way of damages on the allegation that he had been maliciously retrenched from his position as Commanding Officer of No. 229, U. P. N. C. C. R. Company of Municipal Intermediate College, Ujhani. The learned Munsif decreed the suit of the applicant against defendants nos. 1 and 2 on May 25, 1967. The Civil Courts closed for the summer vacation on June 2, 1967 and reopened after the vacation on July 3, 1967. The application for copies of the judgment and decree was made on the same date, that is to say on, July 3, 1967. Copies were ready and delivered on July 5, 1967 and the appeal was filed on July 6, 1967.

3. A preliminary point was raised before the learned Civil Judge of Budaun to the effect that the appeal was barred by time. The learned Civil Judge, relying upon the cases of Udairaj Singh v. Jugal Kishore Mehra, 1956 All WR 737, Munshi Mohton v. Lachmanlal, AIR 1929 Pat 615 and Debi Charan Lal v. Mehdi Husain AIR 1916 Pat 317, held that the appeal was within limitation. Hence this application in revision.

4. The relevant sections of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are Sections 4 and 12. They are reproduced below:-

4. "Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the Court re-opens.

Explanation- A Court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day."

12, "(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded.

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

(3) Where a decree or order is appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed, or where an application is made for leave to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which the decree or order is founded shall also be excluded.

(4) In computing the period of limitation for an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. Explanation - In computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded."

5. In (1897) ILR 19 All 342, a Division Bench of this Court, on facts similar to the facts of the present case, came to the conclusion that the appeal was within time. In AIR 1959 All 699 another Division Bench came to the conclusion that the cases decided prior to the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Maqbul Ahmad v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh, AIR 1935 PC 85 were no longer good law. Some of these cases were cited before the Division Bench and they are- (1897) ILR 19 All 342; Tukaram Gopal v. Pandurang Sadaram, (1901) ILR 25 Bom 584, and Pandharinath Sakharam v. Shankar Narain, (1901) ILR 25 Bom 586. Before adverting to the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council mentioned above, we should l