AJIT SINGH LAMBA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sharma on application (I.A. No. 137/2013) filed on behalf of the appellant for treating the appeal within the period of limitation. According to Mr. Sharma, the order impugned was passed on 19.11.2012, but the appellant came to know about it only on 7.12.2012 and he had immediately applied for its certified copy on that very day. He also points out that though on 19.12.2012 a photocopy of the order was received at his residence through post, but the certified copy, which was applied for on 7.12.2012, was prepared and delivered only on 14.1.2013 and since the appeal has been filed on 24.1.2013, it is well within the period of limitation of 30 days, as provided for under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. He also contends that Rule 11 of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 makes it mandatory that at least one certified copy of the order of the DRT against which the appeal is filed must accompany the appeal memo and as such the appeal could not have been filed without the certified copy of the order, which could be obtained only on 14.1.2013. Mr. Sharma further contends that Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation for an appeal, the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the order appealed from shall be excluded and thus on exclusion of the period from 7.12.2012 to 14.1.2013, which was taken by the office of the DRT for preparation of the certified copy of the order, the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation and there is no delay. He has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in Sita Ram and Anr. v. State, MANU /UP/0042/1961, India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani, : 1 (2003) SLT 155 : (2003) 9 SCC 393 and R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., : 8 (2011) SLT 657 : 4 (2011) CLT 502 (SC) : (2011) 10 SCC 344 in support of his contention.

(2.) IN the case of Sita Ram & Anr. v. State (supra) the question involved in the revision before the Allahabad High Court was whether the complaint filed on 30.4.1958 for an offence under the Factories Act, 1948, for commission of which came to the notice of the Inspector on 31.1.1958 was within three months of the latter date or not as under Section 106 of the said Act Court cannot take the cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act unless the complaint thereof is made within three months of the date in which the alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. The Hon'ble Court, while considering the application of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act to the matter, held in Para 4 of the judgment that, "Really it is immaterial whether the first limb of Sub -section (2) applies or not; what is material is whether the second limb applies or not. It lays down that for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any application by any special law the provisions contained in Section 12 shall apply (insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by the special law)."

(3.) IN R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 10 of the judgment that: "...Ordinarily, the rules framed by the High Court do not provide for supply of copy of the judgment or order to the parties free of cost. The parties to the litigation can apply for certified copy which is required to be supplied on fulfilment of the conditions specified in the relevant rules. However, no period has been prescribed for making of an application for certified copy to the judgment or order or preparation any delivery thereof. Of course, once an application is made within the prescribed period of limitation, the time spent in the preparation and supply of the copy of excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal or revision."