DURGA PRASAD Vs. PALDEN LAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appeal, giving rise to this second appeal, has been dismissed by the learned District Judge as time-barred. The appellants filed along with the memorandum of appeal an application for condonation of the delay. The learned District Judge has, however, held that under the law relating to limitation in force in Sikkim, the Courts have no power to condone the delay and that, even otherwise on merits, there were no sufficient grounds for such condonation. The learned Judge has accordingly dismissed the first appeal and hence the second appeal by the appellant who was one of the two appellants before the learned District Judge.

(2.) During the course of the argument before us it has been urged by Mr. Agarwala, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent, that this second appeal is also time-barred having been filed beyond the period prescribed. Mr. Agarwala has contended that the first appellate judgment was delivered on 29-8-1977 and the copy thereof was applied for on 8-9-1977 and was obtained on the same date. The period prescribed for appeal under the relevant Sikkim Law is 60 days and this appeal, therefore, was to be filed within 29-10-1977, excluding the day on which the copy was applied for and received. On that date, however, the High Court remained closed for the Puja Vacation and reopened on 14-11-1977.

(3.) The first submission of Mr. Agarwala against this application for condonation of delay is that under the law relating to limitation in force in Sikkim, there is no power in Courts to condone any delay made in initiating any action for which a period has been prescribed. The relevant notification, being No. 3112-80/AC, dated 6-5-1950, prescribing period of limitation for appeals etc. runs as hereunder :-