9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appeal was time-barred. 2. Interpretation of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with the Explanation. 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to exclude the time from the date of judgment to the signing of the decree. 4. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the appeal was time-barred The High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred and refused to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant argued that the appeal was within the limitation period if the time was computed from May 6, 1976, when the deficient court fees were paid, and the final decree was drawn up and signed. The High Court, however, held that the appeal was time-barred, taking the date of the decree as March 27, 1976, the date of the judgment. 2. Interpretation of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with the Explanation The Supreme Court examined Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which states that "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." The Explanation clarifies that "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." 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to exclude the time from the date of judgment to the signing of the decree The appellant contended that the time between the judgment and the signing of the decree should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Explanation to Section 12(2) does not allow exclusion of the time taken by the court to prepare the decree before an application for a copy is made. The Court emphasized that the Explanation was introduced to resolve the judicial controversy and to avoid giving a premium to unmerited idleness and indifference of litigants in making an application for a copy. 4. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 The Supreme Court noted that even if the legal position under Section 12(2) read with the Explanation did not support the appellant's claim, the High Court should have considered condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court observed that there was no default on the part of the appellant and that the delay was due to the indifference or negligence of the appellant's advocate. The Court held that the appeal was not barred by limitation, considering the special facts of the case where the decree could not be prepared without the plaintiff depositing the deficient court fees. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and made no order as to costs. The Court expressed hope that the parties would settle the matter amicably when the records reach the High Court.
|
