LALIT KUARI Vs. MAHA PRASAD NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to the Special Bench is the re-consideration of the view expressed in Mukund Mahto V/s. Niranjan Chakravarty A.I.R. 1934 Pat. 353 that the provisions of Section 12, Limitation Act are not applicable to Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10, Letters Patent of this Court.

(2.) The facts are these. The judgment under appeal was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 9-10-1945, in the exercise of his original civil jurisdiction. The appeal was presented to the Registrar on 26-11-1945. The Stamp Reporter in his clear report of 12-12-1945 states that the appeal was barred by limitation inasmuch as it should have been filed within 30 days of the date of the judgment under Rule 2(1), Chap. 7 of the Patna High Court Rules. The appellant on the other hand contended that his appeal was not barred by limitation as he was entitled to a deduction of time for obtaining a copy of the judgment and of the decree. It is not disputed that if the time in obtaining these two documents is deducted the appeal is within time. But relying upon the decision of this Court in Mukund Mahto V/s. Niranjan Chakravarty A.I.R. 1934 Pat. 353 the Stamp Reporter has suggested that the appellant is not entitled to a deduction of this time as no copy of the judgment or decree is required to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal under Rule 2(1), chap. 7 of the Rules of this Court.

(3.) Although the question is not free from difficulty, having considered the learned arguments which have been advanced before us and in particular the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in J.N. Surty V/s. T.S. Chettyar A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 103, I am of opinion that the contention of the appellant is sound and the case in Mukund Mahto V/s. Niranjan Chakravarty A.I.R. 1934 Pat. 353 was wrongly decided.