KARUPPANA GOUNDER Vs. MARAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Court below is clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial Court was delivered on 17-4-1976. The petitioner applied for copy of the judgment in C.A. 1609 / 86. Stamps were called for on 2-5-1986. As the petitioner did not furnish stamps, the copy application was struck off on 6-5-1986. The petitioner filed I.A. 453 of 1986 for restoration of the copy application to file and that was ordered on 25-7-1986. Again stamps were called for on 7-8-1986. Stamps were deposited in time on 11-8-1986. Copies were made ready on 22-8-1986 and the appeal was presented before the appellate Court on 22-9-1986.

(2.) On objection taken by the Office, the learned District Judge upheld the same and held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The learned Judge has observed that the trial Court was no doubt entitled to restore the copy application and excuse the delay in depositing the copy stamps but that would not bind the appellate Court for the purpose of considering the question whether the appeal was filed in time. The learned District Judge was under the impression that the appellate Court can take into account the original date of calling for stamps and the actual date on which stamps were furnished pursuant to the order of the trial Court and period in between should be considered as delay on the part of the petitioner. That view is clearly unsustainable. Once the Court having jurisdiction had restored the copy application and given time to the party concerned to furnish copy stamps, the party is entitled to furnish stamps before that date and if he does so, he cannot be considered to be guilty of delay nor the time, which elapsed between the date of calling for stamps on the first occasion and the date of furnishing stamps after restoration of the copy application, be calculated for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. This principle has been laid down by this Court in Muthulakshmi v. Swaminathan, 1982 (2) MLJ 194 (sic).

(3.) Hence, the order of the Court below is set aside. I hold that the appeal filed by the petitioner in the District Court, Periyar Dt. at Erode, is in time and the District Judge is directed to take the appeal on file, if papers are in order, and number the appeal and the appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.