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

1960 Supreme(MP) 400

A.H.KHAN
LALTA PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
SHYAMMOHAN LAXMINARAYAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.B.MISHRA, J.P.SHRIVASTAVA

A. H. KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE facts leading to this appeal in short are that the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced on 25-1-1957. It is admitted that 26th and 27th January, 1957 were public holidays. After the reopening of the Courts the judgment-debtor applied for copy of the judgment which was given to him in four days. He filed the appeal on 1-3-57. This appeal after excluding the days spent in obtaining a copy i. e. four days is admittedly beyond time if period of limitation is computed from 26th January 1957, and on this ground the learned District Judge, Gwalior, has dismissed it.

( 2 ) THE question for decision in this case is whether in computing the period of limitation, two days i. e. 26th and 27th January on which the courts admittedly remained closed, because of the public holidays, should be excluded or not. It seems there is a conflict of judicial opinion on the point. On the one hand the view taken in Puttulal v. Bhagwan Dass, AIR 1938 All 106 and Subramanyan v. N. Narasimham, AIR 1920 Mad 359 (2) is that where a judgment is pronounced on a day prior to the vacation of the Court and an application for a copy is not made till several days after the reopening of the









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