BASAVARAJAPPA Vs. M S CHANNABASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The office has raised an objection that there is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal, but the office is not right in pointing out that there is a delay of 16 days However, there is a delay of only four days

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has filed an affidavit of the appellantstating thus: "2. The judgment was pronounced on 16-11-1989. But the decree is signed on 22-11-1989. Certified copy was sought on 21-11-1989. Further, I was required to appear and receive copy on 7-12-1989 on which date I appeared and took copy. Therefore, the limitation started running only from 7-12-1989 end not 16-11-1989 or any other date.

(3.) 1 have filed the appeal on 7-3-1990which was the 90th day. The calculation is as under: From 7-12-1989 to 7 3-1990: December 1989 .... 24 days January 1990 .... 31 days February 1990 .... 28 days March .... 7 days 90 days There is therefore, no delay. The appeal may be registered and posted for admission. Wherefore, I pray accordingly." 3. The contention of Sri Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant is that no doubt judgment was pronounced on 16-11-1989; however, the decree was signed only on 22-11-1989, whereas the appellant made an application for a certified copy of the judgment and decree on 21-11-1989 before the signing of the decree, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the limitation commenced only from 22-11-1989 - the date on which the decree was signed. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Udayan Chinubhai v R.C, Bali(A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2319).