Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1956, decided on 23rd February 1960.
S. 12 read with High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. I, Chap. XIV‑D, para 2‑"Time requisite for obtaining copy"‑Meaning.
It is implied in para. 2 (ii) (d), Chap. XI V‑D, Vol. 1, High Court Rules and Orders that the copying agency will inform the applicant to take delivery of the copy on a certain date.
The time "requisite" for obtaining copies which can be excluded under section 12, Limitation Act, is the time which is taken between the date of application and the date when the copies are ready, but it can be further extended if further delay takes place by reason of the carelessness of the office in giving wrong information to the applicant as to the date on which the copies would be ready, or in giving no information at all.
Whatever period is necessary for the doing of a thing of that kind will be included in the time requisite for obtaining a copy.
Tolaram v. Jaffar Khan 38 I C 464 and Madan Singh v. Puran Singh A I R 1926 Lah. 84 ref.
Fouda Uraon v. Ganpat Ram A I R 1920 Pat. 278 and Sheogobind v. Ablakhi I L R 12 All. 105 rel.
S. 12‑Copying department being official agency not agent of applicant.
Labhu Ram v. Bansi Dhar A I R 1936 Lah. 120 and Kishore Chand v. Bahadur A I R 1936 Lah. 771 rel.
Muhammad Ismail Bhatti for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 23rd February,'. 1960.
Allah Ditta filed six suits for possession by pre‑emption, and in each of these the plaint was rejected on the 12th of May 1954 because it did not disclose any cause of action. Allah Ditta thereupon filed six appeals to the District Judge on the 17th of June 1954, but these were dismissed as being time‑barred. From these decisions he filed six second appeals in the High Court and the appeals having been accepted, the vendee‑defendant has brought six Letters Patent Appeals against the decision of the Single Judge.
2. An application for copies of the judgment and decree of the trial Court was made by Allah Ditta on the 8th of June 1954, though the copyist's endorsement shows the date of application to be the 10th of June. Next, the copyist showed that the copy was ready for delivery on the 11th of June, though it has been found as a fact by the District Judge that it was not ready till the 12th of June 1954. Allah Ditta was not told by the copying agency to call for the copies on any specified date, but the 13th of June being a Sunday, he went on the 14th of June and obtained the copies. The matters upon which the parties are agreed now are that the application for copies was made on the 8th of June, that the copies were ready for delivery on the 12th of June and that the delivery was made on the 14th of June: If the time requisite for obtaining copies expires on the date on which the copy is actually ready, then Allah Ditta can avail of five days, but it such time extends to the date of delivery, then he can avail of seven days. Now the plaints having been rejected on the 12th of May 1954, the appeals would be within time on the 11th of June 1954, and if five days are allowed for the copies the appeals would be within time on the 16th of June. They were actually filed on the 17th of June and they would be within time if seven days are allowed for the copies.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Tolaram v. Jaffar Khan (38 I C 464) where it was held with reference to the Sind Chief Court Rules that it was not necessary to give the applicant for a copy notice ‑of the fact that the copy was ready for delivery. Our own rules originally provided in Volume I, Chapter XIV‑D, paragraph 2, clause (ii), sub‑clause (d), that "the date on which a copy is ready for delivery will be deemed, for the purpose of such calculation, to be the day on which it is given." This, however, was amended by a correction pamphlet No. 39, dated the 3rd June, 1959, to read thus:
"The date communicated to the applicant for taking delivery of the copy or the date on which it is ready for delivery, which ever is later, shall be deemed, for the purpose of such calcula tion, to be the day on which it is given".
In other words, it is implied that the copying agency will inform the applicant to take delivery of the copy on a certain date, and this amendment is evidence of a general feeling in this Court that it will be unreasonable to expect an applicant to call for a copy morning and evening everyday so as to ascertain whether it is ready. It may so happen that although at three o'clock in the afternoon a copy is not ready, it is completed some time after four o'clock ; but if the applicant had called at three o'clock he would have been sent away without the copy, and on the following morning his appeal might be time‑barred.
4. Where the copying department is an official agency charged with the duty of making and delivering copies, the argument that it is an agent of the applicant and that, ' conse quently, any delay on its part should be treated as a delay by the applicant, was rejected by a Single Judge in Labhu Ram v. Bansi Dhar (A I R 1936 Lah. 120) and again by a Full Bench in Kishore Chand v. Bahadur (A I R 1936 Lah. 771) and we are respectfully of the same opinion.
5. The time "requisite" for obtaining copies which can be excluded under section 12, Limitation Act, is the time which is taken between the date of application and the date when the copies are ready, but it can be further extended if further delay takes place by reason of the carelessness of the office in giving wrong information to the applicant as to the date on which the copies would be ready, or in giving no information at all. See Fouda Uraon v. Ganpat Ram (A I R 1920 Pat. 278). In Sheogobind v. Ablakhi (I L R 12 All. 105) Mahmood, J. included within the "time requisite" even the days which the applicant allowed to pass between the date when the estimate of costs was delivered to him and the date on which stamp was put in by him‑eight days‑on the ground that " the word requisite, makes it possible to require its meaning to be such that he should not lose the right of appeal either by reason of neglect of the officials who issue copies or those who are required to give notice when such copies are ready". Unless on facts we could hold that the applicant required eight days for this purpose, we may not be prepared to go so far with Mahmood, J., but we respectfully agree that whatever period is necessary for the doing of a thing of u that kind will be included in the time requisite for obtaining a copy.
6. In certain other cases, like Madan Singh v. Puran Singh (A.I R 1926 Lah.84) it has been held that where the delay in producing a copy of the decree was due to the failure of the office to inform the applicant of the date when the copy would be ready, limitation should be extended under section 5, Limitation Act. In view of our interpretation of section 12, we find it unnecessary to resort to this provision.
7. The appeals are dismissed with costs.
K.M.A. Appeals dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer