JOSEPH Vs. OUSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was the defendant in a suit for money. The suit was decreed against him and he applied for the printed copy of the judgment. He was to deposit the printing charge amount on 26-10-1979. He failed to deposit the amount and the application was struck off on that day. He made an unsuccessful attempt to review that order. An application to condone the delay in remitting the printing charges also was dismissed by the Trial Court. Undaunted by these failures, the petitioner again filed another copy application for printed copy of the judgment. That also was dismissed and the defendant filed C.R.P. No. 863 of 1980 before this Court. This Court directed the court below to issue printed copy or manuscript copy whichever was applied for by the defendant and the copy application filed by him was ordered to be treated as one filed on 14-1-1980. The defendant petitioner again approached the court below to get the printed copy of the judgment. The Court below refused to grant a certified copy.

(2.) The reason given by the learned Munsiff to refuse to grant certified copy of the judgment was that the decree was passed on 28-9-1979 and a copy application filed after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for preferring appeal is not maintainable. The Court below however stated that in ordinary printed or manuscript copy of the judgment and decree could be given on payment of requisite charges.

(3.) Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the order passed by the learned Munsiff is perverse and unreasonable. The rule as has been understood by the learned Munsiff is stated in para 5 of the impugned order as follows: