9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the expression "the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment" under Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Analysis: The judgment in question revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment" as mentioned in Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The primary contention raised is whether the period allowed for depositing printing charges for a copy of the judgment should be excluded in the computation for an appeal under Article 156 of the Limitation Act, which sets the time limit for filing an appeal to the High Court. The appellant argues that the time taken to make payment of printing charges, as allowed by a notice under Rule 234 of the Civil Rules of Practice, should be considered as part of the time necessary for obtaining a copy of the judgment. The Court delves into the meaning of the term "requisite" as elucidated by judicial precedents. Referring to cases such as Pramatha Hath Roy v Lee and J.N. Surty v. T.S. Chettyar, the Court emphasizes that the time requisite for obtaining copies is the time diligently spent by the appellant in acquiring the copies. It is highlighted that any delay caused by the negligence or carelessness of the party applying for a copy cannot be factored into the calculation of the necessary time. The Court underscores that the time taken by the appellant to supply printing charges after notification cannot be deemed as necessary time, as it is a result of the applicant's neglect or indifference, not diligence. Moreover, the judgment notes the consistent practice in various High Courts, including Kerala High Court, not to exclude the period taken by a party to provide printing charges after notification. The Court clarifies that the practice of retaining the application for a week in the Copying Department for payment of printing charges is an indulgence and not a mandate to delay payment. It is established that the party should deposit the required charges promptly after notification, and any delay caused by the party's negligence cannot be considered in computing the necessary time for obtaining the copy. Failure to exclude the time taken for depositing printing charges would result in the appeal being out of time, as conceded by the appellant in this case.
|
