JUDGMENT

Dalal, J C - The learned District Judge of Fyzabad rejected the appellant's petition of appeal on the ground that it was presented beyond time. The judgment of the trial Court was dated the 25th September 1924 and the decree was prepared on 30th September 1924. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that these six days should be deducted and excluded as time requisite for obtaining a copy. A ruling of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Beni Madhub Mitter v. Matungini Dassi [1886] 13 Cal. 104 (F.B.) was quoted in support. Such however appears to be the practice in the Calcutta High Court and such practice cannot govern the practice of other Courts. Reference to this practice is made by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Pramatha Nath Roy v. Lee A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 352. At p. 1003 (49 c.) of the report their Lordships state: "It is then urged that there is an authority, decided in 1886, which has been the origin of a practice undeviatingly followed by the Courts in Calcutta in the interpretation of the statute, and that practice is said to be that in determining what is the time requisite which may be deducted you are, in all cases, to look at the time that has actually elapsed in obtaining the order." No such practice prevails either in the province of Oudh or in the sister province of Allahabad. The appellant was well aware that the date of the decree would be considered to be the date of the judgment under Order 21, Rule 7. He was therefore not under misapprehension of law by reason of any practice prevailing in this province. Patna rulings quoted in the judgment of the lower Court are not reported in the authorised law reports. In this particular case the appellant is not entitled to any indulgence either. He only tried to cover up his negligence by taking advantage of the time spent in getting the decree prepared. The decree was admittedly prepared on 30th September 1924, but it was not till the 23rd of October that he applied for a copy. In the ruling of their Lordships referred to by me above it was laid down that the time, which need not have elapsed if the appellant had taken reasonable and proper steps to obtain a copy, could not be regarded as requisite time within Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is not explained why the appellant waited for 21 days before applying for a copy of the decree and for nine days after the copy was ready before filing his appeal.

2. I dismiss this appeal.