JUDGMENT

Thomas, CJ - This appeal is clearly barred by time. The last day of limitation was 10th July 1942, but as the vacation finished on 10th July the appeal should have been filed on 11th July during Court hours. The Court hours are from 10 A.M. to 3-30 P.M. and this appeal was presented to the Deputy Registrar in his office on 11th July 1942 at 3-58 P.M. after the Registrar had left the Court. As 12th and 13th July were holidays it was put up before me on 14th July without any application under Section 5, Limitation Act. I pointed out to the learned Counsel that the appeal prima facie was barred by time and I drew his attention to Chap. 12, Rule 19 of the Chief Court Rules. He asked for sometime to study the point which was granted. The appeal was put up for orders on 25th July when the learned Counsel prayed for time to put in an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, and time was allowed up to 27th July 1942.

2. On 3rd August 1942 the appeal was again put up before me with a report that no application under Section 5 had been filed and on that date the learned, counsel argued that the limitation expired on 11th July at midnight. I regret I am unable to accept his contention. Rule 19 of Chap. 12 of the Chief Court Rules lays down that the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar shall not receive any memorandum of appeal, petition, tender, power of attorney or any application for endorsement thereon of the fact of presentation or for any other purpose under the rules of the Court, except during Court hours on a day which is not an authorized holiday. The provisions are mandatory and the Court hours, as I have said, are from 10 A.M. to 3-30 P.M. Therefore, strictly speaking, the appeal was presented on 14th July 1942, that, is: two days after the period of limitation had expired. The rules framed by this Court are not inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 122 and 128 Civil P.C. I therefore hold that the presentation of the appeal after Court hours was not a valid presentation. The learned Counsel on 6th August 1942, put in an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, in which it is stated that the applicant missed the 7 o'clock train on 11th July 1942 owing to great rush and had to take the next train for Lucknow which left Unao at about 11 in the morning, that when he reached Lucknow he had to look for a lawyer who would prepare the grounds of appeal and file it and that the grounds were prepared and typed at about 3.58 P.M.

3. The appeal is a second civil appeal, the valuation of which is Rs. 180 and for purposes of court-fee Rs. 60. The appeal is a very simple one and ground No. 1 states that the Courts below were wrong in awarding special costs against the appellant. Ground No. 2 states that the finding of the Court of first instance that the plaintiffs' suit was frivolous and vexatious was not borne out by the evidence on record. These grounds will show the nature of the appeal. Assuming that the applicant missed the morning train and took the 11 o'clock train, he had ample time to file the appeal upto 3.30 P.M. He had no business to leave the appeal for the last moment. His carelessness is confirmed by his own action, namely that he did not put in this application until 6th August 1942. As far as I remember he was not present on the date when the appeal was taken up by me, namely 14th July 1942, because I remember the counsel saying that he will file an application under Section 5 when his client comes. Under the circumstances, I am not bound to show indulgence to a litigant who is not prompt in seeking his remedy. I therefore dismiss the appeal and the application under Section 5.