CHANAN RAM AND OTHERS Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar Plaintiff -Respondent filed a suit for possession of the house in dispute on the allegations that he had purchased the same vide sale deed dated Ist July, 1955, from its previous owner Smt. Lal Devi. The suit was contested by Defendants (Petitioners). The parties led evidence. The trial Court did not find any merit in the suit and consequently dismissed the same, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Raj Kumar Plaintiff -Respondent filed an appeal. He also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the appeal. He alleged that the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced on 10th October, 1984, and application for a certified copy was made on the same day. Copies were ready for delivery on 27th October, 1984, and were actually delivered on 29th October, 1984. The last day of limitation for filing of appeal expired on 27th November, 1984, which was a holiday, so the appeal was filed on the next working day i. e. 28th November, 1984. It was further alleged in the application that calculations were somewhat doubtful and there was a likelihood that the Defendants may raise an objection regarding the limitation. So, in order to avoid such a situation, extension of limitation was sought on the ground that according to calculations of the Appellant the limitation expired on 27th November, 1984, and, the mistake, if any, in calculation may be condoned and the appeal be entertained.

(3.) ON behalf of the Plaintiff, contention was raised that the judgment was announced on 10th October, 1984 and he was entitled to the reduction of one day under Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act i. e. the day from which the limitation is to be reckoned, and that he was also entitled to avail another day under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act as the day requisite for obtaining a copy and in this way the applicant was entitled to the reduction of 18 days and the appeal was thus within time. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment in Balkrishna Rajaram Modi v. Baijnath Girdhari Lal Tiwari and other, A. I. R. 1939 Nag. 150., and of this Court in Kashmir Singh v. The Municipality Karnal, 1983 P. L. J. 22. The learned District Judge followed the two decisions and consequently held the appeal to be within time.