FRANCIS Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred for consideration of the Full Bench is whether the appellant is entitled to exclude the time granted under R.242 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala for producing the stamp paper as 'time requisite' for obtaining a copy of the decree appealed from, for the purpose of sub-s.(2) of S.12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. A Bench of this Court has taken the view in Antony v. Eapen, 1961 KLT 321 , that the time granted under S.234 of the Civil Rules of Practice(T. C.) is not liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The above view was followed by a learned Single Judge in Sivalingam v. Dakshinamoorthy, 1992 (2) KLT 929 . In the light of the above decisions, the office took the view that appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. The appellant contends that the view taken in the above mentioned decision is liable to be reconsidered.

(2.) The facts relevant are as follows: - Judgment under appeal was pronounced on 26.8.1995. Application for certified copy was filed on 29.8.1995, stamp paper was called on 25.10.1995 and it was produced on 28.10.1995. Certified copy was ready on 6.11.1995, it was notified on 9.11.1995 and the appellant took delivery of the copy on the same day. The appeal was filed on 5.2.1996. If the appellant is allowed to exclude 3 days granted under R.242 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, the appeal is within time.

(3.) S.12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as follows: