GUMAN Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Merta City whereby he dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the appellants as time barred. The judgment and decree against which the appeal was filed before the Civil Judge, Merta City are of the Munsiff, Nagaur and are dated the 31st of May, 1952. That was the last working day before the vacation and the Civil Courts re-opened on the 3rd of July, 1952. On the 29th of July, 1952, the appellants applied for the copies of the judgment and decree of the Munsiff's court. The copies were delivered to them on the 4th of August, 1952, and the appeal was filed on the 6th of August, 1952, in the court of the Civil Judge, Merta City. Two points were urged before the learned Civil Judge for treating the appeal within limitation ; first was that the period during which the courts remained closed on account of vacations i. e. from the 1st of June, 1952 to the 2nd of July, 1952, should be regarded as time requisite for obtaining copies under sec. 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, and the other was that the appellants remained seriously ill from the 2nd of July, 1952 to the 29th of July, 1952. The learned Civil Judge decided both these points against the appellants. He held that there was preponderance of authority in favour of the view that the holidays cannot be regarded as time requisite for obtaining the copies within the meaning of sec. 12 of the Limitation Act. He further held that as the appellants had failed to file any affidavit in support of their allegation that they remained ill between the 2nd of July, 1952 and the 29th of July, 1952, they have no case for granting the benefit of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) IN this appeal, it has been argued that the appellants were entitled to take advantage of the period of vacations as the Munsiff announced the judgment on the 31st of July, 1952 and the holidays commenced from the next day and they had no time to apply for the copies of the judgment and decree on the day of the pronouncement of the judgment and they applied for them on the 29th of July, 1952. It is clear that the Civil Courts re-opened on the 3rd of July, 1952, and no application for obtaining the copy was made even on the day when the courts re-opened [and was made considerably after that on the 29th of July, 1952. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Behari Dass Vs. Jagdish (1), that under sec. 12 (2) of the Limitation Act, time requisite for obtaining a copy cannot refer to any period antecedent to the appellant's filing an application for copy. This Division Bench authority is binding on me. Had the appellants applied on the day when the Civil Courts reopened for the copies of the judgment and decree, there was some thing to be said in their favour, but they failed to do so. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on several authorities two of which may be selected for the consideration of this appeal.