SILAMBAN CHETTY Vs. RAMANADHAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree was passed on the 12 October 1905. THE respondent applied for a copy of the decree on the 18 October and obtained it on the 19 December. He then applied for a copy of the judgment on the 23"d December and obtained it on the 16 February, 1906. THE appeal was filed on the 3 March and the question is whether the appeal to the lower appellate court was barred under Art. 152 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act of 3877. THE Subordinate Judge has held that under Section 12 the respondent is entitled to a deduction of the time between the 18 October and 19 December and the further time between the 22 December, and the 16 February, and he relies upon the decision in Raman Chetti V/s. Kadiruvelu (1898) 8 M.L.J. 148. This decision, no doubt, supports the judge's conclusion, though in that case the later application was made before the copy of the record first applied-for was ready, and a portion of the time in obtaining one record formed a part of the time in obtaining the other. THE learned judges held that such overlapping period should not be counted twice over and with that exception both the two periods should be excluded. It is true, no doubt, that this would enable a party to apply for tbe copy of one record and then after obtaining that copy to apply for the copy of the other record, and thus extend the time, while if he had applied for both the copies at the same time, the time requisite for obtaining the copies would have been less. But we are unable to say that the learned judges who decided the case in Raman Chetti V/s. Kadirvelu (1891) 8 M.L.J. 148 were wrong in holding that the time requisite for obtaining a copy is the period required to grant the copy after the application is made. It may, no doubt, be fairly argued that the time requisite for obtaining the copy is not necessarily the period after the date of the application, but any other construction will introduce other complications. We are not, therefore, prepared to differ from the decision in Raman Chetty V/s. Kadirvelu (1891) 8 M.L.J. 148 especially as it is a rule of practice, and hold that the appeal was filed in time. THEre is no other question of law.

(2.) THE second appeal is dismissed with costs.