KHUB RAM Vs. LACHHMAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal on a certificate under cl. 44 of the Patiala Judicature Farman, 1999 is met with a preliminary objection by the respondent's counsel that it is time -barred. The judgment by Kartar Singh Sandhu J. was pronounced on 23 -3 -2006 and an application for a copy was made on 4 -4 -2006 and the same was delivered on 13 -4 -2006. On 23 -6 -2006 a copy of the decree was applied for and obtained on the same date. The application for the necessary certificate was submitted on 11 -4 -2006 and it was granted on 22 -6 -2006. The appeal was filed on 4 -7 -2006. According to R. 6 as given in vol. 2 Appendix A, Part B of the Rules and Orders of the High Court an appeal to a Division Bench must be accompanied by copies of the judgment, decree or order appeal from and of the order granting the certificate and it must be filed within sixty days from the date of the judgment, decree or order. Rule 6 further provides that in computing the period of sixty days the time spent in obtaining the copies of the judgment, decree or order and of the certificate shall be deducted. In the case before us, even if the time spent in obtaining the copies of the judgment, decree and the certificate are deducted the appeal is still beyond time.

(2.) SHRI Gurbachan Singh contends that the time occupied in obtaining the certificate should also be allowed, but such an exemption is not contemplated by R. 6 mentioned above. It is stressed that the enforcement of the rule in its terms would result in grave hardship in certain cases, but in view of the express provision of the law on the subject we are unable to help him. It was next argued that it was a fit case for extension of time under S. 5, Limitation Act, but that section has no applicability as it has not been made applicable to such appeals by the rules framed under the Judicature Farman, 1999. The said Farman and the rules framed thereunder provide a special law on the subject and therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot affect or alter the period of limitation specially prescribed by that special law. S. 29, Limitation Act itself says that nothing contained in the Limitation Act shall affect or alter any period of limitation specially prescribed for any appeal or application by any special or local law. Even if there was sufficient cause for the delay, this time -barred appeal cannot be entertained. Dismissed No costs.

(3.) I agree with my learned brother in holding that the appeal is barred by time. I also agree with my learned brother that S. 5, Limitation Act does not apply and inspite of the fact that more than two months were taken by the learned single Judge to grant a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to a Division Bench it is not within our power to extend the time, There is no doubt that this is a hard case inasmuch as the total time allowed for appeal is sixty days while the time spent in obtaining the requisite certificate amounted to more than two months, but when the provision of law is clear, we cannot grant relief merely on the ground of hardship. I would, therefore, suggest that steps should be taken to amend the rules to meet cases of this kind.