BANCHANIDHI SAHOO Vs. NILAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the District Judge dt. 12-4-1982 by which order the learned District Judge came to hold that the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 60 of 1981 filed before him was barred by limitation.

(2.) Against the order of the Munsif, Puri, dt. 16-5-1981, in Miscellaneous Case No. 271 of 1980, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge on 21-7-1981. According to the petitioner's case, the learned Munsif delivered the order in the miscellaneous case during the last hours of 16th of May, 1981 which was the last working day of the Court before Summer Vacation. The Court remained closed from 17-5-1981 to 21-6-1981 and reopened on 22-6-1981. The petitioner filed an application for certified copy of the impugned order on the reopening day, i.e. 22-6-1981 and the copy was ready on 1-7-1981. The copy was delivered to the petitioner on 2-7-1981 and the petitioner filed the appeal on 21-7-1981.

(3.) The short question for consideration is whether the vacation period intervening between the dates of the impugned order and the copy application can be excluded as time requisite within the ambit of S.12 of the lim. Act or not. The learned District Judge relying on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nanusam v. Sitaram, AIR 1972 Raj 36 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bansi Dhar v. Firm Bajrang Lal Mahabir Pershad AIR 1976 Del 107, has come to hold that the said period cannot be excluded.