APARAJITA DIBYA Vs. BINOD BEHARI PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Stamp Reporter has raised an objection that the second appeal is barred by limitation by three days. Mr. S.K. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that in case the period taken for filing the requisites for obtaining the copy would not be taken into consideration, the Stamp Report would be correct and as a measure of abundant caution, he has filed the application for condonation of delay.

(2.) Mr. Mohanty relied upon R.20 of Chap. I of Part IV in the General Rules and Circular Orders (Civil), Vol. I of this Court under which three days are granted to deliver the requisites for copy. The rule reads as follows :

(3.) Perusal of S.12 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that the time taken by the authority to supply the copy is to be excluded and the time taken by the applicant is not to be excluded. A defective application for copy is not to be entertained and is liable to be rejected. To protect the application from rejection three days period is granted to file the requisites. If the same are not filed within three days as provided, the application is liable to be rejected and thereafter, a fresh application is to be filed. This cannot be interpeted to be time-requisite for the purpose of obtaining a copy. With great respect, I am not able to agree with the view of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in (1981) 2 Mad LJ 194 (supra). Accordingly, the benefit which was given for protecting an application cannot be taken advantage of for the purpose of computing limitation. In this view of the matter, there is no doubt that there is delay of three days and the stamp Report is correct.