DIRECTOR OF ENDOWMENTS AND JOINT SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE KING KOTHI ROAD HYDERABAD Vs. RAJ LAKSHMI NARAYANA PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.P. No. 5051 of 1974 is filed by the respondent in the Second Appeal. It is an application accompanied by an affidavit with a prayer that the court should reject the Appeal on the ground that It is barred by limitation. The averments may briefly be stated. The summons In the second appeal were served on the petitioner herein, who is the respondent In the second appeal, in March, 1974. He filed the Vakalat on 18th March, '974 The First appeal against which the Second Appeal was filed was disposed of in November, 1970. The petitioner was surprised to find the second appeal being numbered in 1973 and the summons being served in 1974. On enquiry, the petitioner had come to know that the A ppeal was filed beyond time and was therefore barred by limitation. The second appeal was presented on 7th October, 1972. The Judgment of the lower appellate Court was delivered on 9th November, 1970. The appellants had applied for copies on 13th November, 1970 and the copies were ready on 22nd October, 1971 Thus the second appeal which was preferred on 7th October.1972 along with the cert/fied copies of the judgment and decree was hopelessly barred by limitation The secord appeal which was presented on 7th October, 1972 was returned by the office of the High Court for rectifying certain objections including an objection that the appeal was barred by limitation. It also appears that it was represented with some endorsement to the effect that it was not barred by limitation and at that stage primed copies of the judgment were annexed to the second appeal. There was not only a delay In representation of the second appeal but also considerable delay In representation of the second appeal The second appeal was numbered without notice to the petitioner, condoning the delay in presentation and representation. No application was ever filed for condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal. It was therefore prayed that the apeal should be rejected on the ground of limitation as the same had been numbered without notice to the petitioner.

(2.) The appellants in the second appeal filed a counter affidavit. The Personal Assistant to the Commisslcper, Endowments Department, had filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the appellants. It is admitted therein that the second appeal was presented on 7-10-1972 and that the certified copies for preferring an appeal were ready on 22-10-1971 i, e. one year after the certified copies were ready. The office ra sed an objection that the Appeal was barred by limitation. The appellants however submitted that the appeal I was filed within the period of limitation from the date of obtaining the pi Inted copies of the judgment. The delay being explained thus, the appeal was considered to be filed within time by the office of the High Court It is further stated that since the printed copies of the judgment were not available in time to be filed in the registry, an application for dispensing with the production of the judgments of the lower courts was filed and allowed as such The second appeal was admitted on 30-11-73, It was also stated that when the production of the printed copies of the judgment was dispensed with, the appellants were entitled to count the period of limitation from the date when the printed copies of the judgment were obtained and filed into Court. There is no bar of limitation for the period of limitation can be calculated from 'he date of the printed copies of the judgment under appeal.

(3.) If. is not disputed in the case that no notice was served in this case on the respondent in the second appeal before the appeal was admitted It is obviously so because it was apparently thought by the office that as on the date when the printed copies of the judgments were filed, the appeal must be held to be in time, presumably having regard to S. 12 of the Limitation Act.