ABDUL HAKIM CHOWDHURY Vs. HEM CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) But the Court allowed the application.

(2.) It is open to me to object to it now under Order XLVII, Rule 7. (b) and (c) of the Code. Though no appeal lies from an order of the High Court, still I can take this objection in this appeal, which is an appeal from, the final decree in the suit. The order granting the review is to this effect: "Having regard to the fact that an analogous appeal has been admitted by two learned Judges, who, we are informed, were told that we had summarily rejected the appeal, we think this latter also should be admitted." This application was not supported by any affidavit explaining the delay of one month since the other appeal was admitted. I ought to mention that there was a note at the end of the application as follows: "Petitioner prays for extension of time "under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act."

(3.) As regards S. A. No. 2024, I submit that no appeal was filed on 10th April 1912, only a memorandum of appeal without the necessary copies required by Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code having been filed. Even the memorandum was filed out of time by about 20 days. The application filing the copy of the decree was not supported by any affidavit, and did not contain any prayer for extension of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It merely says that the copy was not filed through mistake. The copy actually filed, took only 9 days to obtain, and even that period cannot be deducted. Had the copy been filed as soon as it was received, both the appeals would have been dismissed together on 24th June 1912. It is not explained why there was a delay of more than one month in filing it, nor did the Court excuse this delay or the-previous delay in filing the memorandum of appeal out of time.