SHANKER RAM Vs. O.I.C. & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Registry/Stamp Reporter has raised an objection about the competence of the appeal, pointing out that the appeal is time barred by 41 day. On perusal of the calculation made by the Stamp Reporter, it transpires that while calculating the delay aforesaid, the Office has not given deduction of the entire period spent in obtaining the certified copy viz. 02.05.2013 to 18.06.2013, more particularly for the period after 09.05.2013, as according to the Office, the certified copy was ready on 09.05.2013; the due date for delivery of the copy.

(2.) The endorsement in terms of Rule 234 of General Rules (Civil), 1986 exhibited on certified copy of the order dated 30.04.2013 runs as under:-

(3.) Mr. V.L. Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the calculation of the delay as made by the Registry is incorrect. He submitted that the Office has not given deduction of the days lapsed after preparation of the certified copy viz. 09.05.2013 upto the date of receipt of the same i.e. 18.06.2013. He contended that admittedly, the notice intimating the fact that the copy is ready had not been issued, and until and unless the notice in this regard, as contemplated under Rule 240 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986 is issued, the period lapsed between the date of filing of the application for obtaining copy and the date of receipt of the certified copy is required to be excluded. He further asserted that though Rule 239 of the Rules, 1986 enjoins upon the Copying Department to intimate the definite date, but there is no such practise or mechanism to intimate the due date, when the copy will be ready.