Skip to content


Selamban Chetty Vs. Ramanadhan Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.301a
AppellantSelamban Chetty
RespondentRamanadhan Chetty
Cases ReferredRaman Chetty v. Kadirvelu
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), sections 12 and schedule ii, article 152 - appeal--computation of time--time requisite for obtaining copy--applying for copy of decree after obtaining copy of judgment. - .....record and thus extend the time while if he had applied for both the copies at the same time, the time requisite for obtaining the copies would have been less. but we are unable to say that the learned judges in raman chetty v. kadirvelu 8 m.l.j. 148 were wrong in holding that the time requisite for obtaining a copy is the period required to grant the copy after the application is made. it may, no doubt, be fairly argued that the time requisite for obtaining the copy is not necessarily the period after the date of the application but any other construction will introduce other complications. we are not, therefore, prepared to differ from raman chetty v. kadirvelu 8 m.l.j. 148 especially as it is a rule of practice and hold that the appeal was filed in time. there is no other question of.....
Judgment:

1. The decree was passed on the 12th October 1905. The respondent applied for a copy of the decree on the 18th October and obtained it on the 19th December. He then applied for a copy of the judgment on the 22nd December and obtained it on the 16th February 1906. The appeal was filed on the 3rd March and the question is whether the appeal to the lower appellate Court was barred under Article 152 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1877. The Subordinate Judge has held that under Section 12 the respondent is entitled to a deduction of the time between the 18th October and the 19th December and the further time between the 22nd December and the 16th February and he relies upon the decision in Raman Chetty v. Kadirvelu 8 M.L.J. 148. This decision no doubt supports the Judge's conclusion though in that case the later application was made before the copy of the record first applied for was ready and a portion of the time in obtaining one record formed, a part of the time in obtaining the other. The learned Judges held that such over-lapping period should not be counted twice over and with that exception both the two periods should be excluded. It is true, no doubt, that this would enable a party to apply for the copy of one record and then after obtaining that copy to apply for the copy of the other record and thus extend the time while if he had applied for both the copies at the same time, the time requisite for obtaining the copies would have been less. But we are unable to say that the learned Judges in Raman Chetty v. Kadirvelu 8 M.L.J. 148 were wrong in holding that the time requisite for obtaining a copy is the period required to grant the copy after the application is made. It may, no doubt, be fairly argued that the time requisite for obtaining the copy is not necessarily the period after the date of the application but any other construction will introduce other complications. We are not, therefore, prepared to differ from Raman Chetty v. Kadirvelu 8 M.L.J. 148 especially as it is a rule of practice and hold that the appeal was filed in time. There is no other question of Law.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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