GANDHO Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing their appeal as barred by limitation.

(2.) The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Class, Hamirpur (which is a tehsil in Kangra district) on 23rd June, 1958. On 30th of June, 1958, an application was made by the plaintiffs to the copying agency at head-quarters Dharmsala (where the file of this case had ultimately to be consigned to the general record room) for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree, which were required for filing an appeal before the learned District Judge. On the same day, this application was returned by post to the plaintiffs on the ground that the record had not yet been consigned to the record room. It appears that the application reached the plaintiffs a few days later, but on 14th of July, 1958 it was again presented to the copying agent at headquarters Dharamsala. On 19th of July, 1958, the required certified copies were sent by post to the plaintiffs and on 30th of July, 1958, they filed the appeal before the learned District Judge.

(3.) The appeal was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that it had been filed beyond limitation. He was of the view that the plaintiffs were entitled to exclude a period of only six days i.e. from 14th of July to 19th of July 1958 for obtaining the required copies for filing the said appeal. The contention of the plaintiffs, on the other hand, was that the entire period from 30th of June, 1958, when they had first filed an application for obtaining the said copies, to the 19th of July, 1958 when the same were sent by post to the, should he excluded in computing the period of limitation. The learned District Judge, while interpreting Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Copying Agency Rules held that the plaintiffs could not have made an application for these copies to the copying agent at headquarters Dharamsala. The trial Judge was at Hamirpur and the said application should have been made to the copying agent at the tehsil headquarters or to the Court concerned if it was made within ten days of the passing of the final orders by the court. Since the application was made within seven days of that date the application should have been presebted to the Copying Agent at Hamirpur. As the application was wrongly made to them copying agency at the headquarters, it was rightly returned to them on the ground that the records had as yet not been consigned to the general record room. The learned Judge repelled the contention of the counsel for the plaintiffs that they had the option of making the application either at the tehsil headquarters or at the district headquarters. He went on to say, "even if it may be conceded for the sake of argument that he could make the application at the headquarters was perfectly within his rights to return the application when the records of the case had not as yet been consigned to the record room. At that time the Copying Agent could not be sure even of the fact that the case was pending in that Court at all as claimed by the appellants. He could be sure of these facts only after the records of the case had been consigned to the Record Room. In such a case if any person makes any application at the headquarters, he does it at his own risk. In case he does not get the copy from there, then he will not be entitled to the extension of the period for these days. I hold, therefore, that the appellants are not entitled to get an extension in their period of limitation for this appeal for the days from the 30th of June, 1958 till the 14th of July, 1958."