Skip to content


Ponnuswamy Nadar Vs. Ananthappa Nadar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1981)1MLJ92
AppellantPonnuswamy Nadar
RespondentAnanthappa Nadar and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....excluded or not while computing the limitation in filing appeals to this court. rule 135(3) of the civil rules of practice, governing compulsory printing of judgments and orders, allows seven days' time from the date of notice for a party to deposit the amount called for, for the purpose of printing the judgment. in this case, the printing charges were called for by the lower court on 28th october, 1978 and the printing charges were deposited on 4th november, 1978. admittedly the printing charges have been deposited within seven days as allowed by the rule. in re, javvaji venkateshwarlu 1. : air1974ap319 , it is stated as follows:as is indicated in rule 127 of civil rules of practice, where the copy applications are not accompanied by requisite number of stamp papers or requisite amount.....
Judgment:

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.

1. The question is whether the time taken in the lower Court for depositing the printing charges called for, has to be excluded or not while computing the limitation in filing appeals to this Court. Rule 135(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice, governing compulsory printing of judgments and orders, allows seven days' time from the date of notice for a party to deposit the amount called for, for the purpose of printing the judgment. In this case, the printing charges were called for by the lower Court on 28th October, 1978 and the printing charges were deposited on 4th November, 1978. Admittedly the printing charges have been deposited within seven days as allowed by the Rule. In re, Javvaji Venkateshwarlu 1. : AIR1974AP319 , it is stated as follows:

As is indicated in Rule 127 of Civil Rules of Practice, where the copy applications are not accompanied by requisite number of stamp papers or requisite amount of printing charges, the Civil Rules of Practice contemplate only calling for such stamp papers or printing charges within a particular period fixed by the Court. If the stamps are filed or charges are paid within that time fixed, the party must be deemed to have complied with that direction of the Court. If the party complies with that direction on the last date of the period (granted) by the Court, he is deemed to have complied with the Court direction on the first day of the direction, and the time taken for compliance by the party shall be time taken by the Court as time requisite for supplying copies.

2. As far as the present case is concerned, no doubt, the Court has not fixed any time for depositing the printing charges. But Rule 135(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice allows seven days' time for the party concerned to deposit the printing charges. On an analogy, we can take it that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court cited supra will squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that view, the time taken for depositing the printing charges --in this case the same is within the period contemplated under Rule 135(3)--may be excluded. After excluding the period, if the office finds that the filing is in time, the appeal may be numbered or otherwise, necessary petition may be insisted upon for excusing the delay.


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