OM PRAKASH Vs. RAM BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal on admission, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 stood up to raise a preliminary objection that the appeal itself is barred by time. The office has not noticed it and made up endorsement on the question of limitation. Since the stamp impression on the certified copy showing the date on which the copy was applied and supplied were not legible, we called for the original record from the copying section. From the concerned Register and the record made available to us, it is clear that the judgment in appeal was passed on 25.4.1994 and on the same day, the application for certified copy was filed by depositing Rs. 2/ - as copying charges. The Copying Section had given the applicant date 3.5.1994 for his appearance. The applicant did not appear on 3.5.1994. The application was sent to the Record Room on 25.5.1994. The applicant then appeared as later as on 6.9.1995 - - about one year and two months after filing the application. In the appropriate column, the copy is shown as ready on 6.9.1995 and on the say day, he was asked to supply further funds. He supplied Rs. 24/ - as further charges and the copy was also supplied to him on the same day, i.e. 6.9.1995.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the applicant having failed to appear on 3.5.1994, he is not entitled for the entire copying period for filing the appeal alongwith the certified copy. Reliance was placed on Pramatha Nath Roy v. W.M. Arthur (AIR 1922 PC 352); Jijibhoy N. Surty v. T.S. Chettar (AIR 1928 PC 103); Sitaram v. Chameli Bai (AIR 1961 MP 310) and Lata Bal Mukand v. Lajwanti (AIR 1975 SC 1089).

(3.) SECTION 12 of the Limitation Act allows exclusion of the period of obtaining certified copy. In subsection (2) to section 12, for that purpose, expression used is as under :