KHAKHAR SHIVLAL VALLABHAJI Vs. MISTRY RAMJIBHAI DHANJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Judge Bhavnagar refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal holding that there was no sufficient cause to do so. Such an order is not liable to be interfered with in a revision.

(2.) But it is however contended that in fact there was no delay. The judgment appealed against was pronounced on 2-5-59. Vacation commenced from 3-5-59 and continued till 15-6-59. An application for certified copies of the judgment and decree was made on 6-6-59 and they were delivered on 22-6-59. The appeal was filed on 25-6-59. The District Judge thought that there was a delay of two days as the appeal had not been filed on 22-6-59. Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed the suit appeal or application may be instituted preferred or made on the day that the Court re-opens. Section 12 of the Limitation Act so far as relevant reads as follows.

(3.) Part III of the Indian Limitation Act deals with the subject of computation of period of limitation. If after the period of limitation is computed it is found that the period of limitation prescribed expired on a day when the Court is closed then the suit appeal or application as the case may be may be instituted preferred or made on the day that the Court re opens This provision is contained in section 4 of the Limitation Act.