1955 (11) TMI 51 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act to Letters Patent Appeals.
2. Interpretation of Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Rules of the Court.
3. The effect of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act on special or local laws.
4. Whether the Rules of the Court under the Letters Patent constitute a special or local law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act to Letters Patent Appeals:
The primary issue is whether the time required for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree should be excluded when computing the period of limitation for filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The relevant rule, Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Rules of Court, states that "a duly stamped memorandum of appeal shall be presented to the Registrar within 60 days and not more from the date of the judgment, unless a Judge in his discretion, on good cause shown, shall grant further time for its presentation." The memorandum of appeal need not be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or decree appealed from.

The court examined the applicability of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, which provides that "in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree appealed from, shall be excluded." The judgment in 'Fazal Muhammad v. Phul Kuar' had held that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment could not be excluded for Letters Patent Appeals. However, the court found that the provisions of Section 12(2) should apply to Letters Patent Appeals, as the rules of the court under the Letters Patent constitute a special or local law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.

2. Interpretation of Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Rules of the Court:
The court analyzed Rule 7, which mandates that the appeal must be presented within 60 days from the date of the judgment. The rule also allows a judge to grant further time for its presentation on good cause shown. The court noted that the rule's language, particularly the phrase "and not more," emphasizes the strictness of the 60-day period. However, the court concluded that this strictness does not exclude the operation of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of the time required to obtain a copy of the judgment or decree.

3. The effect of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act on special or local laws:
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that where any special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the first schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were prescribed in that schedule. For determining any period of limitation prescribed by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Section 4, Sections 9 to 18, and Section 22 shall apply, unless expressly excluded by such special or local law.

The court interpreted this to mean that the general provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 12(2), should apply to the computation of the period of limitation for appeals under the Letters Patent, as these rules constitute a special or local law. The court emphasized that the words "any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law" indicate a broad application of Section 29(2).

4. Whether the Rules of the Court under the Letters Patent constitute a special or local law:
The court held that the rules made by the High Court under its Letters Patent are indeed a special or local law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. This conclusion was based on the fact that these rules govern the jurisdiction and procedure of the High Court, which has a restricted local application limited to the territorial extent of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act apply to the computation of the period of limitation for Letters Patent Appeals.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant is entitled to exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree appealed from in computing the period of limitation for filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The judgment in 'Fazal Muhammad v. Phul Kuar' was overruled to the extent that it was inconsistent with this interpretation. The court directed that the appeal be considered within time if the period for obtaining the copy of the judgment and decree is excluded as per Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.