9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner will be able to file the appeal only when the order copy is received by them, otherwise, the respondent will not entertain the appeal. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the word today in the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench has to be construed as the date on which the order was ready to issue. In such view of the matter, the word today mentioned in the said order refers to the date on which the order copy was issued to the petitioner . Hence, in the present case, since, the order copy was received by the petitioner only on 25.04.2013, the appeal, which was filed on 29.04.2013, was filed well within the period of limitation prescribed by the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of two weeks from 26.03.2013 (the date on which the order was passed) and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide the said impugned order on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 4. Further, he would submit that the order copy of the writ appeal was received by the petitioner only on 26.04.2013 and in the said order copy, only two dates are available, one is 26.03.2013 (the date on which the order was passed) and another one is 25.04.2013 (the date on which the Superintendent, Copyist Department, had signed the order). Hence, he would contend that under these circumstances, while taking the two weeks time mandated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court into consideration, the word today mentioned therein sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the word today in the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench has to be construed as the date on which the order was ready to issue. In such view of the matter, the word today mentioned in the said order refers to the date on which the order copy was issued to the petitioner . Hence, in the present case, since, the order copy was received by the petitioner only on 25.04.2013, the appeal, which was filed on 29.04.2013, was filed well within the period of limitation prescribed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. 9. From the above discussion, the submission of the respondent that the impugned order, which was passed on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation, is not sustainable. Hence, this Court is inclined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
