Skip to content


Ram Kishan Shastri Vs. Kashi Bai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1907)ILR29All264
AppellantRam Kishan Shastri
RespondentKashi Bai
Excerpt:
act no. xv of 1877 (indian limitation act), section 12 - limitation--'time requisite for obtaining a copy.' - .....of section 12 of the limitation act if we were to hold, as did the lower court, that the application for a copy of the judgment must necessarily be by the appellant or somebody proved to have been acting in the matter as her agent. the language of section 12 is very general. it provides that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree shall be excluded in the computation of time. the section does not say by whom the copy is to be obtained, nor does it introduce the words which have been suggested as necessarily embodied in the section, showing that the copy must be obtained for the purposes of an appeal. we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.

1. We agree with the learned Judge of this Court in the conclusion at which he arrived. We think it would be unduly restricting the language of Section 12 of the Limitation Act if we were to hold, as did the lower Court, that the application for a copy of the judgment must necessarily be by the appellant or somebody proved to have been acting in the matter as her agent. The language of Section 12 is very general. It provides that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree shall be excluded in the computation of time. The section does not say by whom the copy is to be obtained, nor does it introduce the words which have been suggested as necessarily embodied in the section, showing that the copy must be obtained for the purposes of an appeal. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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