Skip to content


Timappa Ganpat Gudgar Vs. Manjaya Subraya Hebbar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Extraordinary Application No. 157 of 1923
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Bom425; (1924)26BOMLR362; 87Ind.Cas.545
AppellantTimappa Ganpat Gudgar
RespondentManjaya Subraya Hebbar
Excerpt:
.....certified copies were supplied respectively on july 3 and august 8. it was held that the whole period of time occupied in obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree appealed from should be excluded......in this court directly in point. in macmillan and co. v. cooper : air1924bom185 . the unsuccessful party applied for a certified copy of the judgment on june 12, and of the decree on june 30. the certified copies were supplied respectively on july 3 and august 8. it was held that the whole period of time occupied in obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree appealed from should be excluded. though that was a case of the two periods overlapping, the decision in silamban chetty v. ramanadhan chetty was approved of. we think, therefore, that these two distinct periods should be excluded in computing the time for the admission of the appeal. the rule, therefore, must be made absolute and the appeal remanded to the lower appellate court for being heard on the merits. costs.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, C.J.

1. The question in this application for revision is whether the Judge was right in holding that the appeal was time-barred on the ground that two separate periods could not be excluded, one for obtaining a copy of the judgment and another for obtaining a copy of the decree. In this ease there was an interval between the two periods. The case, therefore, comes within the decision in Silamban Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chetty I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 256). There the decree was passed on October 12, 1905. The respondent applied for a copy of the decree on October 18, and obtained it on December 19. Then he applied for a copy of the judgment on December 22 and obtained it on February 16, 1906. The Court held that the party was entitled to deduct both the periods, and consequently, the appeal was in time. Reference was made to the case of Raman Chetti v. Kadirvalu (898) 8 M.L. J 148 where the two periods overlapped, and it was decided that the overlapping period should not be counted twice over.

2. There is no decision in this Court directly in point. In Macmillan and Co. v. Cooper : AIR1924Bom185 . the unsuccessful party applied for a certified copy of the judgment on June 12, and of the decree on June 30. The certified copies were supplied respectively on July 3 and August 8. It was held that the whole period of time occupied in obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree appealed from should be excluded. Though that was a case of the two periods overlapping, the decision in Silamban Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chetty was approved of. We think, therefore, that these two distinct periods should be excluded in computing the time for the admission of the appeal. The rule, therefore, must be made absolute and the appeal remanded to the lower appellate Court for being heard on the merits. Costs costs in the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //