UDAI RAJ SINGH Vs. JUGAL KISHORE MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent as Plaintiff filed a suit No. 132 of 1949 for recovery of Rs. 3,000 from the Defendant-Appellant in the court of the Munsif of Dehradun. Arguments in that suit were heard on 8-12-1949 and judgment was pronounced on 22-12-1949. It is agreed before me that no date had been fixed by the learned Munsif for pronouncing the judgment and the counsel for the Defendant only came to know that judgment had been pronounced on 23-12-1949. It is argued that in view of the legal position it must be taken that the judgment in the suit was pronounced on 23-12-1949. The court of the learned Munsif was closed between 24-12-49 and 31-1-50 both days inclusive on account of the Winter Vacation. In Dehradun it is during winter that the Civil Courts close for one month's vacation.

(2.) The Defendant in the suit who is the Appellant before me made an application for a copy of the judgment and the decree of the learned Munsif to the District Judge of Saharanpur. The Saharanpur District Judgeship comprised within it Dehradun Munsifship. (Saharanpur Judgeship observes no holidays in winter). The application dated 28-12-49 was registered by the District Judge, office on 5-1-1950. Thereafter it was sent to the Munsif of Dehradun and was received by the Munsif on 1-2-50. The copy of the judgment was ready on 11-3-1950 but the copy of the decree was ready on 11-4-1950 and both copies were delivered to the Defendant on 11-4-1950. The Defendant filed an appeal to the District Judge on 18-4-50 annexing thereto the copies of the judgment and decree as he was required to do under the law. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the appeal was barred by time and rejected it. From the order of rejection this second appeal has been filed. The learned District Judge has treated the application for copy as having been made on 1-2-1950 and as having been made within time, and has held that the Defendant could tack the period of 1-2-50 to 11-4-50 to the period of 30 days allowed to him for appeal and has held that the appeal should have been filed on 12-4-50 and since it was not filed upto 18-4-50 the appeal was beyond time, he having further come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground indicated by the Defendant in his petition Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

(3.) The Defendant-Appellant argues before me that his appeal to the District Judge was within time. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the period between 24-12-49 and 31-1-50 when the learned Munsif's court was closed must be taken into consideration in calculating the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree. If the period of the vacation is considered as a part of the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree, then the appeal would be within time.