RAM AUTAR SINGH Vs. BHAIRON GHULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two matters have been consolidated and heard together by a Full Bench in order to decide the legality and the scope of the rules which this High Court has made with reference to the necessity of filing with the memorandum of appeal in a second appeal, a copy of the first court's judgment.

(2.) The facts of the two cases do not materially differ. In Bhairon Ghutam V/s. Ram Autar Singh, the lower appellate court's judgment, against which it is sought to appeal, was dated the 16 of July, 1920. The memorandum of appeal was presented to this Court on the 25 day of October, 1920, the first day on which the Court was open after the long vacation and the last day prescribed by law for presenting or preferring the appeal. It was accompanied by a copy of the decree and of the lower court's judgment but by no copy of the first court's judgment. The appellant had been supplied with this as long ago as the 20 of August, 1920, but he did not file it until the 16 of December, 1920, when notice was issued to the other side to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted beyond time.

(3.) In Chandrabhan Singh V/s. Chaudhri Lekhraj Singh the date of the lower court's decree was the 1 of July, 1920. The memorandum of appeal was presented to this Court on the 25 day of October, 1920, being, as in the other case, the first day on which the Court was open after the long vacation and the last day prescribed by law for presenting or preferring the appeal. It, also, was not accompanied by any copy of the first court's judgment, which was filed on the 6th of January, 1921. In this case also notice was issued to the other side to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted out of time.