SARDAR BANO Vs. TEHSIN ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 16 -9 -1991 passed by the court below. Initially, an appeal was filed by the Respondents, but certified copy of the decree was not filed. An application was moved for accepting the appeal without the decree. It was stated that the decree was not obtained till that date. The appeal was filed on 7 -5 -1991. A month's time was granted to file certified copy of the decree. Inspite of the fact that a month had been over, neither any application for extending the time was moved and time granted, nor the certified copy of the decree itself was filed in the court below. On behalf of the applicant Shakuntala Devi v. Kuntal Kumari : AIR 1969 SC 575 and Ors. cases were cited before the court below. It was pointed out that it was mandatory that the certified copy of the decree should accompany along with the memo of appeal in the court. The case cited (supra) no doubt says that the filing of the decree with the memo of appeal is mandatory. An amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure was made by the Amendment Act, 1976. Thereafter by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976, Order 41 Rule 1 was also amended for the State of U.P. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure was added w.e.f. 1 -2 -77. The provisions of the amended proviso is quoted as under:

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant strenuously urged that in absence of an application for extending time, the Court has no jurisdiction to extend time for accepting the certified copy of the decree. The court below observed that he was not inclined to dismiss the appeal on technical ground.

(3.) DISMISSED summarily.