MOTI LAL Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision Under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by Moti Lal and his sons, owners of M/s. Moti Lal Mangal Chand, against the Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Pali, dated 29th January, 1974, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Sojat, in Civil Original Suit No. 165 of 1968 Moti Lal and Ors. v. Shri Krishna.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision -petition may be briefly stated as follows : Moti Lal and his sons, owners of firm M/s. Moti Lal Mangat Chand, had money dealings with Shri Krishna, defendant, who, after going through the accounts, executed a pro note and a receipt for the balance of Rs. 300/ -, on 21st July, 1975 in favour of plaintiff and agreed to pay interest thereupon at the rate of 12% per annum. After execution of the pro -note the defendant could not make any payment either towards the principal or towards the interest. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of the principal sum of Rs. 300/ -, plus Rs. 90/ -, as interest calculated at rate against Amba Lal legal representative of Shri Krishna, deceased.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. Kewal Chand, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.L. Soni, appearing on behalf of the non -petitioner A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the non -petitioner that the revision -petition is barred by limitation, as it had been filed after 62 days of the expiry of the period prescribed for filing revision petition in the High Court. The preliminary objection does not appear to be well -founded. The judgment and decree against which the revision -petition has been filed by the plaintiffs are dated 29th January, 1974. The petitioner applied for copies of the judgment and decree on 6th February, 1974 and the copies thereof were delivered to him on 6th March, 1974. After excluding the time spent in obtaining copies of the judgment and decree the last day of limitation for filing the revision -petition was 28 -5 -1974. It appears that in the meantime the plaintiff applied for obtaining copy of the judgment of the trial court on 4 -5 -1974, but no copy was delivered to him by the copying department and the application was returned to him on 31 -5 -1974 for presentation to the proper court as the record of the trial curt had been sent to the record room at Pali. Thereafter, the plaintiff again presented his application to the copying deparment Pali, on 1 -6 -1974 and a copy of the judgment of the trial court was issued to him on 8th July, 1974, Thereafter he filed the revision petition on 29th July, 1974 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had actually made an application for obtaining a certified copy of the trial court's judgment before the limitation prescribed for the revision -petition had expired, this Court is of the view that the rime spent in obtaining the copy of the trial court's judgment should be excluded from computing the period of limitation. Under Rule 132 of the High Court Rules a revision -petit ion must be accompanied by a certified copy of the trial court's judgment and so the revision -petitioner, in my opinion, can take advantage of Section 12 of the Limitation Act for having excluded the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the trial court's judgment, from computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing the revision -petition. Hence, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the non petitioner is over ruled and the revision -petition is treated to have been filed in time.