9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Kumar and Ms. Raveena Rai and Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Advocates for SRA. For the Appellant: Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Singh, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Mr. Siddharth Iyer and Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Mr. Palash and Ms. Srishti Kapoor, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Samar Bansal and Mr. Vedant Kapur, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Kumar and Ms. Raveena Rai and Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Advocates for SRA. For Appellant: Mr. Raghavendra M. Bajaj and Mr. Agnish Aditya, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Mahima Singh, Mr. Palash and Ms. Srishti Kapoor, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Samar Bansal and Mr. Vedant Kapur, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prateek Kumar and Ms. Raveena Rai and Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Advocates for SRA. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These three Appeal(s) have been filed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited & Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 244, the Appellants have to be vigilant and apply for certified copy of the order immediately after passing of the order and Appellants cannot wait for uploading of the order, if any. It is further submitted that Appellants are also not entitled for exclusion of period from 12.05.2022 to 09.06.2022 under Section 12, sub-section (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the copy of the Application filed on 12.05.2022 was deficient and the Application was filed only with court fees of Rs.5/- and the same has became in order only on 09.06.2022, when court fees for certified copy was paid by the Appellants and at best the Appellants are entitled for exclusion of time from 09.06.2022 to 14.06.2022 and if time from 09.06.2022 to 14.06.2022 is excluded, the Appeal(s) having been filed beyond 45 days from 10.05.2022 deserve to be rejected as barred by time. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat (supra) has categorically held that limitation for filing an Appeal shall start running from the date of passing of the order and the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the order is to be made as per the Rules after payment of the prescribed fees. Application for certified copy is also an application within the meaning of the Rules. 10. Now we come to Rule 28, which provides as follows: "28. Endorsement and scrutiny of petition or appeal or document.-(1) The person in charge of the filing counter shall immediately on receipt of petition or appeal or application or document affix the date stamp of Tribunal thereon and also on the additional copies of the index and return the acknowledgement to the party and he shall also affix his initials on the stamp affixed on the first page of the copies and enter the particulars of all such documents in the register after daily filing and assign a diary number which shall be entered below the date stamp and thereafter cause it to be sent for scrutiny. (2) If, on scrutiny, the appeal or petition or application or document is found to be defective, such document shall, after notice to the party, be returned for compliance and if there is a failure to comply within seven days from the date of return, the same shall be placed before the Registrar who may pass appropriate orders. (3) The Registrar may f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quisite for obtaining copy of the decree. We may refer to the full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in (2001) 1 Klt-194(FB) - Francis vs. Deputy Registrar. The Kerala High Court has had occasion to consider the time requisite for obtaining certified copy of the decree for the purpose of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as Rule 242 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala. In paragraph three of the judgment, relevant provisions have been mentioned to the following effect: "3. S. 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as follows:- "12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings- 1) X X X 2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and 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." Rule 242 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala reads as follows:- "242. Calling for stamp papers:- Every day between the hours of 3 and 5 p.m. a list showing the applications in which records have been received and the number of stamp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Gafoor Khan. In the case of Howrah Municipality, the Respondent had made an Application for obtaining the copies of the record from the Municipality. In paragraphs 24, 25, and 26 following has been held: "24. So far as the plea of limitation is concerned reference need be made to the provisions of Sections 141(2) and (3) of the Act, which are to the following Meet: Section 141(2): Such appeal shall be presented to the Subordinate Judge of Howrah, within thirty days from the date of the order passed under Section 140, and shall be accompanied by an extract from the register of objections containing the order objected to. Section 141(3): The provisions of Parts II and III of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, relating to appeals, shall apply to every appeal preferred under this section. The argument of Mr. Roy on the point of limitation is that the application for copy was made by S.K. Sawday and Company on behalf of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. on July 7, 1954, but the application was not accompanied by fees, prescribed under the schedule of fees for copies of records from the Municipal Record Room (ext. N). The Respondent waited till August 30, 1954, when i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is to the following effect: "28. We have examined ext. L, the Municipal office endorsements on the application for copy, dated July 7, 1954. We find that on July 19, 1954, there was a note made on the application to the effect that necessary fees might be deposited with the Record Keeper. On July 30, 1954, another note was made on the application, "Please write". We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the Municipality failed to prove that it had actually written to the Respondent asking for deposit of fees." Further, in the above case, the High Court held that there was no rule for payment of fee, hence, the Respondent was entitled to exclude the entire period from the date when they applied for the copy and till date when the copy was ready. Following was laid down in paragraph 34: "34. The elaborate argument of Mr. Roy can be disposed of on a short ground. Section 351A of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, does not authorise Commissioners of Municipalities, to make rules for levy of fee or charges for supply of copies. Therefore, under the authority of that section the schedule of fees, as in ext. N, could not be framed. If the Howrah Municipality framed any do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e requisite does not begin until an application for copies has been made. The words 'requisite' and 'obtaining' mean that some definite step should be taken by the Applicant himself towards obtaining the copy and it cannot be said that the time was required for obtaining a copy if the Appellant had not even applied for a copy thereof. The 'time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree' cannot refer to any period antecedent to the Appellant's asking for a copy by the usual mode of applying thereof, or to any period subsequent to its being ready for delivery." The judgment of Hyderabad High Court, thus, does not help the Respondent in the present case. 16. We may also refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham & Anr. - SLP (Civil) No.2308/2009. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case had occasion to consider the scope of Section 149 of Civil Procedure Code. Section 149 of CPC gives the power to the Court to extend the time for payment of court fee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 laid down following: "7. ....Section 149 raises a legal fiction in terms whereof as and when such deficit fee is pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
