Skip to content


Niadar Mal (insolvent) and Jhuman Lal Vs. Mulraj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR42All260
AppellantNiadar Mal (insolvent) and Jhuman Lal
RespondentMulraj
Excerpt:
.....of time necessary for obtaining essential copies--application for copies made after period of limitation had expired. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which..........allow an appellant to apply for a series of documents one after the other and to claim that his time of appeal is extended merely because he has applied within the successive periods of what he contends is the extended limitation of time. in other words an appellant must apply under section 12 once and for all for every essential document before the period of limitation of his appeal has run out. he cannot seek in aid the extended period if he finds later that an essential document is omitted. well, that being so, it is quite clear that the ninety days had expired without the appellant having applied for a copy of the. decree and therefore as far as this application seeks to be brought within the provisions of section 12 and is an application as of right, the application must fail......
Judgment:

Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Tudball, J.

1. This is an application by a creditor who wishes to raise various questions in an appeal from the order of discharge granted by the learned Judge of Saharanpur. The only matter before us is whether the appeal should be allowed, it being contended that the appeal is out of time. Having regard to the terms of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, we are of opinion that Section 12 merely extends the time for any given appeal by the period which it is necessary to obtain essential documents for the court to which the appeal is being made and that it does not contemplate and does not allow an appellant to apply for a series of documents one after the other and to claim that his time of appeal is extended merely because he has applied within the successive periods of what he contends is the extended limitation of time. In other words an appellant must apply under Section 12 once and for all for every essential document before the period of limitation of his appeal has run out. He cannot seek in aid the extended period if he finds later that an essential document is omitted. Well, that being so, it is quite clear that the ninety days had expired without the appellant having applied for a copy of the. decree and therefore as far as this application seeks to be brought within the provisions of Section 12 and is an application as of right, the application must fail. But Mr, Nihal Chand has asked that this appeal may be admitted on the grounds which are allowed to us in our discretion. We have considered the matter and we are willing to admit the appeal and we are influenced to some extent by the fact that the order of the District Judge of Saharanpur seems to us an order difficult to work out in practice and one which on consideration by the High Court may require' some modification, In these circumstances we allow the application, not under Section 12 but under Section 5, and we give to the respondent on the application the costs of this application and fix them at Rs. 32.


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