PARAGATI AMULAYYA Vs. IN RE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is posted before me for orders as to whether the second appeal was printed in time.

(2.) This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada. in A. 3. No. 142 of 1960. The judgment in the appeal was delivered on 14th March, 1953. The appellant made an application for certified copy of the decree and printed copies of the judgment on, 18th March, 1963. Copy stamps for the certified copy of the decree and printing charges for sprinted copies of the judgment were called for on 20th July, 1953, Copy stamps were deposited on 23rd July, 1963 and printing charges on 25th July, 1963, The copies were ready on 11th September, 1963. There was no mistake in the printed copies of the judgment but, in the certified copy of the decree of the Subordinate Judge, the date of the decree was noted as 19th March, 1963 whereas it should be 14th March, 1963 because the decree must bear the date of the Judgment. The appellant filed an application, I. A. No. 3001'of 1963, on 17th October, 1963, to amend the decree by correcting the mistakes. It was ordered on 20th November, 1963. The date of the decree was corrected as 14th March, 1963. The Second Appeal was presented to this Court on 4th January, 1964. According to the dates given by the Copyist Department in Copy Application No. 1815 of 1963, the Second Appeal was out of time, the last date for presenting the Second Appeal as per those dates being 5-12-1963. But, it is argued fey Shri K. B. Krishnamurty, the learned Counsel for the appellant, that under Sec. 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the appellant is entitled to deduct the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree and he further argued that the copy of the decree means a correct or true copy of the decree and that the decree, which he originally obtained noting the date as 19th March 1963, cannot be a copy of the decree referred to in S. 12 (2) of the Limitation Act. He could file, according to the learned Counsel, the Second Appeal only enclosing a correct or true copy of the decree. Therefore, the argument proceeds that the time required for obtaining a correct or true copy of the decree has to be deducted in computing the time for filing this Second Appeal and that, if the period from 17th October, 1963 to 20th October, 1963 during which I.A. No. 3001 of 1963 for correcting the decree copy was pending is also deducted, the second appeal would be in time. I accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant and hold that the second appeal is filed in time. Further it is well-settled that a mistake committed by the Court cannot prejudice any litigant, It was a clear mistake of the. lower Court when it gave a copy of the decree bearing a wrong date and the appellant was entitled to have it corrected before he could file a second appeal in this Court.

(3.) Another curious feature of the certified copy of the decree originally given to the appellant is that, when there are twenty-four respondents in A. S. No. 142, of 1960, the certified copy showed only one respondent. After the appellant presented this second appeal in this Court, it was returned to him for getting the decree copy again corrected The appellant took steps for getting the decree copy further corrected by noting the names of the other respomdants also in the Certified copy and this was done by Order dated 24-6-1965 in I. A. No. 1514 of 1965. In view of this it cannot be said that there is any delay in representing ta$ second Appeal even. It is stated before me by Shri Krishnamurthy, the learned Councel for the appellant, that by way of abundant caution he filed a petition to excuse the delay in representing the second appeal. This petition, in my opinion, is wholly unnecessary, because I hold that the Second Appeal was pressented to this Court in time and also that there was no delay in representing the second appeal.