Find a Lawyer

Appeal from Appellate Decree 754 of 1948 decided on 23rd August 1951, against the Decree of H. G. S. Bivar, I.C.S., District Judge of Zilla Sylhet, dated the 30th August 1947, affirming the Decree of Abani Bhusan Ganguli, Subordinate judge, 2nd Court, Sylhet, dated the 14th May 1947.

, S. 12‑Time requisite for obtaining copies‑Partition suit‑Judgment and decree signed on different dates‑Application for copy of decree made beyond 30 days of date of signing decree‑Time spent in obtaining copy of decree not to be allowed‑Separate applications for copies of judgment and decree made on different days‑Time over lapping not be allowed twice over. The word " requisite " in subsections (2.) and (3) of section 12 of the Limitation Act means something more than "required". In determining what is ‑the " time requisite " in section 12, the conduct of the appellant must be considered and no period can be regarded as requisite which need not have elapsed if the appellant had taken reasonable and proper steps to obtain a copy of the decree or order.

" Requisite" means "properly required".

No period can be regarded as "requisite" which is not sub sequent to the presentation of application for copy.

The application for copy must be made before the period of appeal expires. That is, exclusion under section 12 can be claimed only if the application for copy is made at a time when the right to appeal subsists.

Under subsections (2) and (3) of section 12, an appellant is entitled to get a deduction of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree as well as a copy of the judgment and if he has applied for copies of the decree and the judgment at different times, both these periods should be excluded in com puting the period of limitation prescribed for presentation of an appeal, unless the two periods overlap partially or entirely in which case the appellant is not entitled to get a deduction of the same period of time twice over.

In the present case, the judgment was pronounced on the 14th May 1947, and in taking a copy of the judgment 11 days were required but the decree was signed on the 30th June, and application for copy of the decree was made on the 5th August, and copy was obtained on the 25th August, and the appeal was filed on the 28th August 1947. Therefore, the application for copy of the decree having been made when the right to appeal did not subsist, the appellants were not entitled to a