Skip to content


Pannalal Murlidhar Marwadi Vs. Khemchand Sakharchand Gujarathi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Application No. 491 of 1937
Judge
Reported inAIR1938Bom288; (1938)40BOMLR389
AppellantPannalal Murlidhar Marwadi
RespondentKhemchand Sakharchand Gujarathi
Excerpt:
.....of 1908), section 12-exclusion of time-time required in obtaining copy of decree-application for copy made after expiry of period for appeal.;an appeal was presented to the court on february 16, 1937, though the last-day of the period of limitation for its presentation was february 21, 1937, which ' was a sunday, and on the following day the court was closed. it was accompanied by an application for dispensing with copies of the judgment and decree appealed from. the court dispensed with the former but not with the latter. a copy of the decree was applied for on february 23, and obtained and filed on march 1, 1937. it was objected that the time taken for obtaining copy of the decree could not be deducted because the copy was not applied for until after the period of limitation for the..........21, 1937, which was a sunday and the following day february 22, 1937, was a public holiday. the appeal would thus have been in time if presented on the 23rd. actually it was presented on february 16, but was not accompanied by copies of the judgment and the decree which the court was asked to dispense with. on february 19, 1937, the court made an order dispensing with a copy of the judgment, but refusing to dispense with a copy of the decree. a copy of the decree was asked for on february 23, obtained on march 1, and filed the same day. assuming the appeal to be properly filed on march 1, and deducting the requisite period to obtain copies, the appeal is in time. but the office view is that the time taken for obtaining copies cannot be deducted because the copies were not applied for.....
Judgment:

Norman, J.

1. The question is whether the appeal before me is in time. The ninetieth day was February 21, 1937, which was a Sunday and the following day February 22, 1937, was a public holiday. The appeal would thus have been in time if presented on the 23rd. Actually it was presented on February 16, but was not accompanied by copies of the judgment and the decree which the Court was asked to dispense with. On February 19, 1937, the Court made an order dispensing with a copy of the judgment, but refusing to dispense with a copy of the decree. A copy of the decree was asked for on February 23, obtained on March 1, and filed the same day. Assuming the appeal to be properly filed on March 1, and deducting the requisite period to obtain copies, the appeal is in time. But the office view is that the time taken for obtaining copies cannot be deducted because the copies were not applied for until after the ninetieth day. An opposite view was taken in Siyadat-un-nissa v. Muhammad Mahmud I.L.R. (1897) All. 342, and in my view that judgment is correct. I therefore find that the appeal is in time.

2. No order as to costs.


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