Certified copy time exclusion applies even after limitation expires, and special-law delay can be condoned within the statutory ceiling.

Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act excludes the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy even where the copy application is made after the original limitation period has expired, because the statute does not require the application itself to be filed within time. Read with Section 29(2), this exclusion applies to limitation under a special law unless expressly excluded. On the rent control issue, the special statute allowed the High Court to grant only a limited further period on sufficient cause, and once the copy time was excluded the revision petitions fell within the statutory outer limit. The discussion concludes that the delay could be condoned within that ceiling.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for computing limitation under a special law, the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy is excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 even when the application for copy is made after expiry of the prescribed period. (ii) Whether the High Court could condone the delay in filing the revision petition under Section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 read with Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether, for computing limitation under a special law, the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy is excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 even when the application for copy is made after expiry of the prescribed period.

Analysis: Section 29(2) makes Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act applicable to periods prescribed by a special law, unless expressly excluded. Section 12(2) mandates exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order sought to be revised or reviewed. The statutory language does not impose a condition that the copy application must be filed within limitation. The exclusion operates on the time requisite for obtaining the copy, and the benefit cannot be denied merely because the application for copy was made after the original limitation had run out. The provision is to be construed so that litigants can effectively pursue the next remedy with an authentic copy in hand.

Conclusion: The time requisite for obtaining the certified copy was rightly excluded, even though the copy application was filed after expiry of the original period.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could condone the delay in filing the revision petition under Section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 read with Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 25(2) permits the High Court to allow further time not exceeding one month on sufficient cause being shown. Read with Section 29(2), the general power under Section 5 operates subject to that special statutory limit. Once the period is computed after excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copy, the revisions were filed within the outer limit of sixty days, and the High Court's exercise of discretion fell within the permissible range.

Conclusion: The High Court had the power to condone the delay, and its order was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that the exclusion under Section 12(2) applies irrespective of when the certified copy is applied for, and that delay under the special rent control regime can be condoned within the statutory outer limit.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the time requisite for obtaining a copy is excluded in computing limitation even if the copy is applied for after the limitation period has expired, and the special law's condonation power must be exercised within its own statutory ceiling after such exclusion.

---