MUTHUKARUPPAN Vs. CHELLAYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The court below by an order passed in the appeal pending before it held that a question of limitation for the appeal urged before it by the respondent to that appeal could not be considered at that stage and the matter will have to be considered as and when a printed copy of the judgment is produced by the party. That is the order which is attacked in this revision petition. To understand the scope of this attack, it is necessary to refer to certain facts.

(2.) The judgment which was under appeal before the court below was one the length of which exceeded 700 words. If so, under R.258(1) of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice when a copy of such order or judgment is applied for by a party for the purpose of appeal such copy shall be printed. Sub-r.(2) of the same rule provides that no manuscript or typed copy of a judgment or order which has to be printed under sub-r.(1) shall be received for the purpose of any appeal except when the party files a petition for its provisional acceptance on the ground that he has applied for a printed copy but has not received the same and he requires urgent orders. In such cases the Court shall require the party to produce the printed copy within a stated time. Under O.41 R.(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, every memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and, unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith, of the judgment on which it is founded. The same rule also provides that the copy of the judgment shall be a printed copy in every case in which the High Court has prescribed that the judgment shall be printed when a copy is applied for the purpose of appeal. Evidently, the reference has to be understood as to R.258(1) of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice. The position therefore is that where a judgment is of a length exceeding 700 words, a printed copy of the judgment has to be filed for the purpose of appeal except in cases where the appellate court dispenses with it. S.12(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for the exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which the decree is founded where a decree is appealed from.

(3.) The judgment which was under appeal before the court below exceeded 700 words in length and therefore for the purpose of the appeal the judgment had to be printed. The plaintiff who was the appellant before the court below applied for a printed copy of the judgment but the printing is not over. It is too early to decide whether, as and when the printed copy is obtained and produced, the appeal could be seen to be in time. But for the purpose of the appeal the plaintiff has apparently obtained another certified copy and has produced it along with the appeal. If time for filing the appeal is reckoned on the basis of the certified copy then the appeal would be barred and the respondent defendant wanted the court below to bold that it was so barred. The answer to this was that the certified copy of the judgment filed by the appellant was only a provisional copy, that time was not to be reckoned on the basis of that copy, that the appellant was bound to file a printed copy, that be had applied for such printed copy, that as and when it was produced the appeal would be seen to be in time and that since that is the copy which he is bound to produce, the question of limitation cannot be decided until such copy is filed in court. That contention has been accepted and the court has found that it is too early to say whether the appeal is barred or not.