BIMALA BALA AUDDY Vs. BIMALA SEN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In connection with the present Review application, an application, for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act had been preferred and was invited to express my view on the prayer for condonation, as, such view might obviate the necessity of going into the merits of the Review application itself.

(2.) The Review application, admittedly, had been filed on 13th Nov., 1992, and the same was accompanied by authenticated xerox copy of the judgement sought to be reviewed. The certified copy of the impugned judgment, however, was filed during the pendency of the matter after the same was made ready on 22nd Dec., 1992. There is no dispute that if the time taken for obtaining the certified copy is considered, the Review application cannot be said to have became barred by limitation and as such no prayer for condonation of delay will be necessary. It is contended, on behalf of the opposite party-judgement-debtor, that since under the Rules of this Court the Review application need not be accompanied by the certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed, the bar of limitation cannot be overcome on the basis of section 12 of the Limitation Act by taking advantage of the period needed to obtain the certified copy; alternatively it was contended that even if a certified copy was needed, the authenticated xerox copy could be treated as the certified copy and the same having become available already to the applicant for review, prayer for condonation could not be justified by taking into consideration the time taken for obtaining the second certified copy.

(3.) In the case of Additional Collector of Customs and Anr. Vs. M/s. Best and Company, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1713, following the decision in the case of Jijihoy Vs. T.S. Chettyar, reported in 55 I.A. 161 it was laid down by the Apex Court that even if under the Rules of a High Court, annexation of certified copy of the order was not necessary, and even when that was not annexed the time requisite for obtaining such a certified copy was to be excluded for calculating the period of limitation. Relying upon the said ratio, I hold that the application for review is entitled to the benefit by excluding the time which was required for obtaining the certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed and once such exclusion is allowed the application would have to be treated to have been filed within time. Regarding the other contention, advanced by Mr. Sengupta, on behalf of the judgment-debtor, that the authenticated xerox copy should be treated as the certified copy, I cannot accept such contention as correct as would be antithetical to the concept of certified copy in vogue.