SADASHIVRAO GANGADHAR Vs. RAMCHANDRA BAWAN BHAGWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this revision by the Plaintiff against a judgment and a decree of the Small Cause Court, Lashkar, dismissing his suit, so far as necessary for the determination of the question of limitation, are as follows. The judgment of the Small Cause Court was given on 29 -4 -1952. On 31 -5 -1952 the applicant applied for a copy of the judgment but gave wrong number of the case. The Small Cause Court closed for the summer vacation, on 1st June and opened on 1st July. On 1st July the Court below informed the applicant that as wrong number had been given no copy could be furnished and the fee paid would be refunded. The applicant did not, however, take any action and allowed the application to lapse. The High Court was also closed for summer vacation and opened on 12 -7 -1952. The applicant on that date filed an application in revision to this Court but did not furnish a copy of the judgment of the Court below with it. It appear he presented a fresh application to the Small Cause Court on 12 -7 -1952 for copies of the judgment and decree and obtained them on 14 -7 -1952 and filed them on the same date in this Court. Rule 12 of the Rules for Judicial Business in this High Court makes compulsory to file a copy of the judgment with the petition for revision and it is well settled that the presentation of a petition for revision without a copy of the judgment is no valid presentation of the revision. So it cannot be disputed that the revision in this case was filed on 14 -7 -52 when the copy of the judgment was filed. Now Rule 15 fixes a time limit for revision petitions in the following words:

(2.) MR . Naokar, learned Counsel for the non -applicant contends that the application in revision is barred by time. The applicant had forty -five days within which to file the revision against the trial Court's judgment. Two days were taken in obtaining copies of the judgment and decree of the trial Court and so the total period of limitation available to the Plaintiff applicant was forty -seven days and the period expired on 15th June 1952 when the High Court was closed and therefore the revision should have been filed on 12th July 1952 when the High Court re -opened after the annual vacation. On behalf of the Plaintiff applicant it was argued by Mr. Khandekar that as this Court was closed on 15th June 1952, the Plaintiff applicant was entitled to file the revision on the re -opening day i.e., 12 -7 -52, & on that day, whilst his right to file the revision still existed he applied for a copy of the judgment oil the Court below. It was, therefore, contended that the period taken to obtain this copy, namely two days, had to be excluded and that extended the time to 14th July 1952 when the revision was filed and so the revision was within limitation.

(3.) THE judgment in - ' : AIR 1935 PC 85 (D)' is very important as it contains an analysis of Section 4, Limitation Act and shows that Section 4 by its very language cannot extend the period prescribed for the presentation of' any suit, or appeal, or application. Its purpose is merely to allow any suitor or applicant to file his suit or application on a date after the expiry of the prescribed period if that period had expired while the Court was not sitting. It was, therefore, held that there was no possibility of adding to the period of extension granted by Section 4 a further period which was said to fall within Section 14 Lord Tomlin who delivered the judgment of the Board dealt with the method of computing time where period had to be excluded and on page 87 of - ' : AIR 1935 PC 85 (D)' observed as follows: