Advocates:
E. M. S. ANAM

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

P.A. OOMMEN

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

MORAN MAR BASELIUS MARTHOMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1992

BENCH:

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

BENCH:

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:

1992 AIR 1977 1992 SCR (3) 548

1992 SCC (3) 503 JT 1992 (4) 141

1992 SCALE (2)40

ACT:

Limitatior, Act 1963 :

S. 12-Exclusion of time taken in obtaining copy of

judgment appealed from-Applicability of Order XLI Rule 1-

Suit tried alongwith another suit-Common judgment dismissing

the suit-Appeal-Time taken in obtaining copy of judgment by

plaintiffs in one suit-Whether plaintiffs in the other suit

entitled to claim the benefit for purposes of limitation.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

Order XLI Rule 1-Object and applicability of-Whether

controls the provisions under the Limitation Act.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant and Respondents Nos. 6 and 9 filed a suit

in the District Court. The suit was transferred to a Sub-

Judge, who tried it along with another suit filed by other

plaintiffs. By a common judgment he dismissed the

transferred suit as also the other suit. The plaintiffs in

the other suit applied for a certified copy of the judgment

and after obtaining the same filed an appeal before the High

Court. The plaintiffs in the transferred suit also applied

for a certified copy of the judgment, but the application

came to be dismissed for non-remittance of printing charges.

However they obtained a copy of decree and filed an appeal

before the High Court beyond the period of limitation. Copy

of the judgment of the Sub-Judge with the seal of the Court

was also filed. It was explained that they were under bona

fide belief that the copy of the judgment obtained by the

plaintiffs in the other suit could be made use of and that

it was not necessary for them to obtain the copies of

judgment separately. It was pleaded that the time taken in

obtaining certified copies of judgment by the plaintiffs in

the other suit should also be excluded in the case of the

plaintiffs in the transferred suit. The High Court rejected

the application and consequently did not accept the appeal.

It was held that the plaintiffs/appellants could not take

advantage of the certified copy of the

549

judgment obtained by another person. Being aggrieved against

the said orders of the High Court, one of the

plaintiffs/appellants preferred the present appeal by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

special leave.

On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that

since the plaintiffs in the other suit have already filed a

certified copy of the judgment, the filing of the same by

the plaintiffs in the transferred suit should have been

dispensed with; that the proviso to Order XLI Rule 1 CPC

clearly applied to the case; that a memorandum of appeal

need not necessarily be accompanied by a certifed copy of

the judgment obtained by the appellant himself; and that the

copy of the common judgment obtained by the plaintiffs in

the other suit could be used by the plaintiffs in the

transferred suit and in this view of the matter, the appeal

filed was within time.

The Respondents contended that the opposite party has

neither filed any separate application for condonation of

delay nor urged any ground in support of their claim except

stating that they bonafide believed they could make use of

the copy of common judgment obtained by the plaintiffs in

the other suit.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD 1. The entire purpose of introducing the proviso

to Order XLI Rule 1 CPC, was to avoid extra expenses where

more cases than one were disposed of by common judgment and

the Appellate Court was authorised to dispense with the

necessity of filing more than one copy of the