LAWS(CAL)-1950-3-15

KEDAR LAL Vs. HARI LAL

Decided On March 06, 1950
KEDAR LAL Appellant
V/S
HARI LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal from a decree made by an Appellate Bench of this Court in an appeal from a decree made by a single Judge sitting on the Original Side. The Appellate Bench differed from the learned single Judge and eventually made a decree in favour of the plff. for Rs. 40,253/11/10. The value of the suit and the value of the proposed appeal were well over Rs. 20,000/ - and the judgment of the Appellate Bench was a judgment of variance. The deft -appellants would therefore have been entitled to appeal as of right to the Supreme Court, but for the fact that the proposed respt. contends that the application for leave to appeal was barred by time.

(2.) THE only point which have to consider is whether the application for leave to appeal is within time. Admittedly, the time for filing the application was ninety days from the date of the decree and the date of the decree is the date upon which the judgment was pronounced. Judgment was pronounced on 20 -9 -1949 and the appellant filed a requisition for a certified copy of the judgment of the Court below on 23 -9 -1949. On that date the proposed respt. also put in stamps for completion of the decree. It is to be observed that on this date the proposed appellants made no application for a certified copy of the decree. The Courts then closed for the vacation and did not re -open until 2 -11 -1949. On November 2, the judgment of the Appellate Court was filed, but still there was no requisition for a certified copy of the decree. In fact no requisition for a certified copy of the decree was made until 19 -1 -1950. Additional stamps were furnished for the certified copy of the decree on 25 -1 -1950 and a certified copy was made ready on 31 -1 -1950. The petition for leave to appeal was not filed until 14 -2 -1950, long after the expiry of a period of ninety days from the date of the decree.

(3.) THE proposed appellants point out that the decree in question was not signed by the learned Judge who composed the Appellate Bench until 22 -12 -1949. On December 23 the Court closed for the Christmas vacation and did not reopen until 2 -1 -1950. The decree was not actually filed until 12 -1 -1950. What Mr. Sanyal on behalf of the proposed appellants argues is that the period from 20 -9 -1949 to at least 2 -1 -1950 must be excluded as it was a period spent in obtaining a copy of the decree appealed from. His argument is that until the decree was signed and was ready there could be no question of obtaining a copy of the same and therefore the period taken in getting the decree in order and signed must be regarded as part of the period spent in obtaining a copy of the decree.