Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 5 & 12

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)------ Ss. 5 & 12 --- Appeal --- Delay in obtaining certified copies of the decree passed by the lower Court --- Condonation --- Where process for supply of copy had commenced but had not yet concluded, later circumstances would not disentitle the appellant from counting that period towards the period requisites for obtaining the copy.In the present case the appellants submitted an application by r post on 23-12-1963 for getting certified copy of the and decree by the District Judge. The receipt of the registered letter bore No.1 23-12-1963. The Copying Branch registered it on 2-1-1964. In the applied supply of copy, the date of was mentioned as 16-10-1963 30-10-1963 and due to this reason the application was returned with the on 6-2-1964. According to the appellants, the same day the application submitted after correcting the date of decision. The certified copies were on 8-2-1964 which were received by the counsel for the appellants on 13-2-1964. The appellants filed a Regular Second Appeal on 10-3-1964. Along appeal, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the con of delay was filed claiming exclusion of time from 23-12-1963 to 8-2-1 High Court dismissed the appeal as being barred by time.Held, the assertion of the appellants was not repudiated respondents therefore the statement of the appellants could be accept otherwise, the High Court could make a summary inquiry in the mat summoning the record from the Copying Agency in order to find out contention of the appellants was supported by the documentary evidence dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation merely on a technique could have been avoided. The appellants under the rules could send application for obtaining copy of the through post. If there was wrong in the date of and the Copying Agency had either summoned the or verified it from the Courts concerned, this technical error could h corrected by the Copying Agency itself. The application was submitted time. The same was sent back to the appellants for correction of the date of decision, the mistake was rectified and it was resubmitted by the appellants. The appellants were diligently…