KRISHNAJI Vs. N E MATTIKOPPA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs instituted L.C.Suit No.20(1966 in the Court of the Munsiff at Hubli. That suit was heard, and by the judgment dt.30-9-1966 a decree appears to have been circulated and the learned Advocates for the parties signed the draft decree on 31-10-1966. On that very day, an application for copy was filed on behalf of the defendant asking for the certified copy of judgment and decree. The learned Judge signed the original decree on 2-11-1966. The certified copy was delivered to the appellant-defendant on 18-11-1966 and the appeal was filed on that very day. The appeal was registered as CA.No.192/1966 on the file of the Civil Judge, Hhbli.

(2.) When the appeal came up for hearing several years later the learned appellate Judge took the view that the appeal was barred by limitation, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. That is how the defendant has preferred the second appeal.

(3.) The short question that arises is as to whether the appeal filed by the defendant i.e., C A. No. 192/1966 is within limitation. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is opposed to the several decisions of this Court and the learned Appellate Judge was wholly in error in holding that the appeal was barred by limitation. It was submitted that the question of applying for a certified copy of the decree did not arise prior to the signing of the decree, and for purpose of computing the period of limitation, the entire period, i.e., the period from the date of the judgment till the date of signing the decree was required to be excluded. It was, on the other hand submitted by the learned Advocate for respondent that since the application for copy was filed on 31-10-1969 beyond the period of limitation, what is applicable is the principle laid down by this Court in C. Raghavendrarao v. Vasavamba, 1960 Mys.L.J. 132