9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the loss of any copy, a fortiori it would follow that where as in the present case the copy served upon a party is lost and there is no alternative for that party except to apply for a fresh copy in order to be in a position to file revision petition, the time spent in obtaining that copy would necessarily have to be excluded under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. - C.A. No. 1726 of 1971, S.T.R. No. 137 of 1970 - - - Dated:- 22-9-1976 - KHANNA H.R., UNTWALIA N.L. AND JASWANT SINGH JJ. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Advocate, and M.V. Goswami, Advocate, for O.P. Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. -This is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion application "shall be made within one year from the date of service of the order complained of, but the revising authority may on proof of sufficient cause entertain an application within a further period of six months". Question was then agitated before the Judge (Revisions) as to whether the revision application was within time. The respondent claimed that under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, he was entitled to exclude in computing the period of limitation for filing the revision, the time spent for obtaining a copy of the appellate order. This contention was accepted by the Judge (Revisions). He also observed that the fact that the said copy was not required to be filed along with the revision petition would not stand in the wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed, shall be excluded." Bare perusal of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act of 1908 would show that it did not deal with the period of limitation prescribed for an application for revision. As against that, the language of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act of 1963 makes it manifest that its provisions would also apply in computing the period of limitation for application for revision. There can, therefore, be no manner of doubt that in a case like the present which is governed by the Act of 1963, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12 can be invoked for computing the period of limitation for the application for revision if the other necessary conditions are fulfilled. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l or local law. There is nothing in the U.P. Sales Tax Act expressly excluding the application of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for determining the period of limitation prescribed for revision application. The conclusion would, therefore, follow that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act of 1963 can be relied upon in computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision petition under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It has been argued by Mr. Manchanda that it was not essential for the dealer-respondent to file a copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner along with the revision petition. As such, according to the learned counsel, the dealer-respondent could not exclude the time spent in obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Act, 1908, applies even when by a rule of the High Court a memorandum of appeal need not be accompanied by a copy of the decree. Lord Phillimore speaking on behalf of the Judicial Committee observed: "Their Lordships have now to return to the grammatical construction of the Act, and they find plain words directing that the time requisite for obtaining the two documents is to be excluded from computation. Section 12 makes no reference to the Code of Civil Procedure or to any other Act. It does not say why the time is to be excluded, but simply enacts it as a positive direction. If, indeed, it could be shown that in some particular class of cases there could be no object in obtaining the two documents, an argument might be offered th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Letters Patent. The above decision of the Judicial Committee was followed by this court in the case of Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Best Co. A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1713. Similar view was expressed by this court in the case of S. A. Gaffoor v. Ayesha Beghum C.A. No. 2406 of 1969 decided on August 18, 1970 (see Unreported judgments of Supreme Court, 1970, Vol. 2, page 784). It is plain that since 1928 when the Judicial Committee decided the case of Surty [1928] 55 I.A. 161 (P.C.)., the view which has been consistently taken by the courts in India is that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act would apply even though the copy mentioned in that sub-section is not required to be filed along with the memora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
