RUGMINI AMMA & OTHERS Vs. KAMALAMMA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to this Bench for decision is whether, in computing the period of limitation for an application for leave to file an appeal in forma pauperis, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the judgment can be excluded. The relevant provisions of the Limitation Act are sub -sections 2 and 3 of Section 12, and they read :

(2.) ALTHOUGH sub -section (2) speaks of three classes or categories of cases, it provides for exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree only, in cases where the decree is appealed from or sought to be reviewed. Prima facie an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is not an appeal from the decree, but only a step anterior to an appeal. But it would be a strange omission on the part of the legislature if the words 'decree........................ appealed from' in sub -section (2) are held not to include an application for leave to appeal. We are not aware of any case in which it has been held that a copy of the decree need not accompany an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, or that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree should not be excluded in the case of an application for leave to appeal. On the other hand it has been held that, in computing the period of limitation for an application for leave to appeal, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree may be excluded. (See Ram Sarup v. Jaswant Rai (A.I.R. 1915 All 335(2)), and Mahabir Prasad Tewari v. Jamuna Singh ( : A. I. R. 1922 Pat 255). In In Re. Secy. of State (A. I. R. 1925 Mad 1241) Devadoss and Wallace JJ. have held that:

(3.) THIS question came up for consideration in Baldeo Pershad v. Dwarika Pd. : (A. I. R. 1957 Allahabad 334) where a Full Bench of that Court, after a review of the authorities, has come to the conclusion that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment should be excluded in the case of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Mootham C. J., who spoke for the Full Bench observes as follows at page 335: