9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the copying sheets as per Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice and if the said period of 3 days is excluded, his appeal is filed in time. 2. The exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree is provided for by Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act reads : 12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings. (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 . The words 'time requisite' has been the subject matter of judicial interpretation in several decisions. The question here is whether the 3 days time provided for by Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice can be taken as the time requisite within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice reads : 242. Calling for Stamp Papers:-- Every day between the hours of 3 and 5 P.M. a list showing the applications in which rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputing the time requisite for obtaining the copy. The requisite does not mean requisite by reason of the carelessness or negligence of the applicant; it means the time which is occupied by the officer who has got to provide that copy, in making the copy . Per Edge, C. J. in Parbati v. Bhola, ILR 12 All 79 at 82 . His Lordship also referred to the established practice of all the three High Courts that intergrated into the Kerala High Court as well as to the practice of this High Court in support of the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to automatically exclude all the days provided for production of copying sheets or pr0inting charges. His Lordship observed: Further, it has been the consistent practice in this Court, as well as in the High Courts of Travancore-Cochin, Travancore. Cochin and Madras, not to exclude from computation the period availed of by the party in supplying the printing charges after due notification. As the law does not take note of fractions of a day, and the day is counted from midnight to midnight, the day on which the notification was made, as also the day on which the payment was made were excluded in the computation; but where the party faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r production of the copying sheets to keep the application for copy alive, His Lordship Mr. Justice Subramanian Poti (as he then was) observed in the decision referred to above as follows : Then the question is whether the party is bound to furnish stamp paper on the same day the stamp papers are called for. Normally it is difficult to say that this must be the case because there is no knowing at what time the papers arc called for and whether there was sufficient time for the party to comply with it on the same day. Besides, so far as the Kerala State is concerned, there is no difficulty in deciding this question. The Civil Rules of Practice indicate that there must be such exclusion. Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice relates to calling for stamp papers and'the provision is that, 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 papers required shall be affixed to the notice board of the Copying Section. Such list will remain on the notice board for three days and within that time the applicant has to supply the stamp papers called for. Rule 29 of the same rules relates to presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of the judgment will necessarily be the date of the decree. In such a case, a party cannot take advantage of any ministerial delay In preparing the decree prior to his application for a copy, that is to say, if there is no impediment in law to prepare a decree immediately after pronouncement of the judgment, no matter if, in fact, the decree is prepared after some time elapses. No party, in that event, can exclude that time taken by the court for preparing the decree as time requisite for obtaining a copy if an application for a copy of the decree has not been made prior to the preparation of the decree. It is only when there is a legal impediment to prepare a decree on account of certain directions in the judgment or for non-compliance with such directions or for other legally permissible reasons, the party, who is required to comply with such directions or provisions, cannot rely upon the time required by him, under those circumstances, as running against his opponent . This decision only indicates that vigilance on the part of the appellant in applying for copy alone entitles him to exclude the time spent by the office in preparing the decree. 7. During my investigation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Smt. Aparajita Dibya v. Binod Behari Patra (1988) 66 Cut LT 557 : (AIR 1989 Orissa 271) wherein his Lordship Mr. Justice Mohapatra, differing from the view of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in Muthulakshmi v. Swaminathan, (1981) 11 MLJ 94 has held: Perusal of Section 12 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that the time taken by the authority to supply the copy is to be excluded and the time taken by the applicant is not to be excluded. A defective application for copy is not to be entertained and is liable to be rejected. To protect the application from rejection three days period is granted to file the requisites. If the same are not filed within three days as provided, the application is liable to he rejected and thereafter, a fresh application is to be filed. This cannot be interpreted to be time requisite for the purpose of obtaining a copy. With great respect, I am not able to agree with the view of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in Muthulakshmi's case (supra). Accordingly, the benefit which was given for protecting an application cannot be taken advantage of for the purpose of computing limitation. In this view of the matter, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
