Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharaj Narain & Ors
AIR 1968 SC 960, 1968 SCR (2) 842
JUDGES: K.S. Hegde and M. Hidayatullah
Date of Decision: 30-01-1968
FACTS:-
In an appeal filed against the order of the trail court acquitting the respondents, the High Court dismissed the appeal on being barred by the limitation. In order to file appeal against the order of trial court for acquittal of respondents. The appellant obtained three copies of the order appealed against by applying on three different dates. The appellant filed along with the memorandum of appeal that copy which had taken the maximum time for its preparation and sought to exclude such maximum time in computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal but High Court refused dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation.
ISSUE:-
Whether, or not the appeal preferred before the High Court was within limitation period under S.12 of Limitation Act?
JUDGEMENT:-
The Hon’ble court is of the opinion that the High Court failed to lay down the law correctly. The expression ‘time requisite’ in S. 12(2) of the Limitation Act cannot be understood as the time absolutely necessary for obtaining the copy of the order and that what is deductible under S. 12(2) is not the minimum time within which a copy of the order appealed against could have been obtained. It must be remembered that S. 12(2) enlarges the period of limitation prescribed under entry 157 of Schedule 1. That section permits the appellant to deduct from the time taken for filing the appeal, the time required for obtaining the copy of the order appealed from and not any lesser period which might have been occupied if the application for copy had been filed at some other date. This section lays no obligation on the appellant to be prompt in his application for a copy of the order. A plain reading of S. 12(2) shows that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on which the judgment or order complained of was pronounced and the time taken by the court to make available the copy applied for, have to be excluded. There is no justification for restricting the scope of that provision. Thus, with a view to settle important question of law, this appeal was dismissed.
HELD:-
Thus held, that appeal filed before the High Court was in limitation period.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
