ABDUL HAMMED KHAN Vs. FATHER KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are to condone the delay of 18 days, if it is there, in filing the review petitions. In support of the petitions, it is stated in the affidavit that the order under review in the L. P. As was pronounced on 7-8-1980 and an application for issuance of a carbon copy of the order was made on 8-8-1980 and the copy was issued on 26-8-1980. The petitioner was advised that the time taken for issuance of the carbon copy would save limitation for purposes of filing the review petitions. The review petitions were filed on 24-9-1980. An application for issuance of a certified copy was not made earlier under the impression that the carbon COPV would be sufficient for filing the review petitions. Therefore, certified copy was not filed alone with the review petitions. It was therefore prayed that the carbon copy be received and the filing of certified copy may be dispensed with. The petitioner was also under the bona fide belief that the time taken in issu-ine the carbon copy would be counted to save limitation and if still it is found that it does not so save limitation, the delay in filing the review petitions may be condoned.

(2.) The respondent filed a counter-affidavit statine that the review petitions were filed on 24-9-1980 while the carbon copy was issued to the petitioner on 26-8-1980 and that the prayer that the delay, if any may be condoned is as vaeue as it could be. It is also stated that no ground has been made out for condoning the delay of about more than 16 days in filing review petitions. The grounds raised are untenable and do not deserve any consideration.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vasudevapillai submitted that the time taken in issuing the car- bon copy is to be excluded in computing the period of limitation since Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act only speaks of a copy that is to be filed along with the appeal, revision or review petition and that 'copy' includes a 'carbon copy'. Therefore, if the days spent for obtaining the carbon copy are excluded, the review petitions are within limitation and there does not arise the question of condonation of any delay. He further submitted that under the bona fide belief that the carbon copy serves the purpose contemplated under Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act. no application for certified copy was made.