RAJ MOHAN DAS Vs. MIRZAMAL AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of the Petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the second appeal in question which was filed two days out of time. The last date for filing the appeal was 23 -8 -1952 but it was presented on 25 -8 -1952. The cause shown for the delay is that the Petitioner came to file this appeal to Gauhati and approached the Advocate on 17 -8 -1952 who after examining the papers told the Petitioner that the certified copies of the judgment and decree of the first Court were essential and they were not there.

(2.) MR . Goswami for the Petitioner has relied on the decisions of several High Courts and they are - -'Banke Lal v. Bhola Nath' : AIR 1928 All 416(A); - -'George Gowshala v. Balak Ram', AIR 1927 Lah 717(B); - -'Mt. Ghulam Aishan Bibi v. Mohammad Sharif', AIR 1936 Lah 1007(C) and - -'Po Aung Maung v. U. Bya', AIR 1925 Rang 344 (D). I fully agree with the Rangoon view that where filing of the certified copies of the Judgment and decree of the first Court is required under the rules, the delay involved in obtaining those copies might be considered to be one of the valid reasons for the purpose of extending the time for registration of the appeal. Other decisions also support that view though the Lahore decisions go to the extent of favouring the extension of the time under Section 12 , Limitation Act.