Court clarifies deadline calculation in restoration petition, emphasizes fairness and uniformity in time computation.

The court interpreted the period for depositing costs in a restoration petition, allowing the exclusion of the day of the order and extending the deadline based on equitable principles. The court clarified the interpretation of "month" in the court order and highlighted the importance of uniformity in computing time periods. Due to a mistaken assumption in the lower court's order, the petitioner was granted relief, with the erroneous orders set aside. The judgment allowed the revision, emphasizing fairness to parties and directing the petitioner to pay costs by a specified date for the suit's restoration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the period given for depositing costs in a restoration petition.
2. Application of equitable principles in computing time periods in court orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a restoration petition after his suit was dismissed for default. The court initially allowed one month for the petitioner to deposit costs, setting the deadline as the 25th of October. The petitioner argued that the day of the order should be excluded, extending the deadline to 25th November. The court agreed, citing the equitable principle of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, which allows for the exclusion of the first day in computing time periods. This interpretation was supported by previous case law, emphasizing the need to effectuate the intention of the parties or the court order.

2. The second issue involved the interpretation of the word "month" in the court order. The court clarified that "month" should be reckoned according to the British calendar, meaning that the deposit should be made before the 26th of November. Various legal sources and precedents were cited to support this interpretation. The court highlighted the importance of uniformity in interpreting time periods in legal matters and emphasized that the intention behind the order should guide the computation of time.

3. The court found that the lower court's order, stating that the case stood dismissed automatically on the 25th of November, was based on a mistaken assumption regarding the deadline. The petitioner was misled by this order and did not tender the sum on the 25th. The court emphasized that parties should not be prejudiced by a court's mistake and, therefore, granted relief to the petitioner, setting aside the lower court's orders. The court directed the petitioner to pay the costs by a specified date for the restoration of the suit.

4. The judgment concluded by allowing the revision, setting aside the erroneous orders of the lower court, and providing a clear directive for the petitioner to pay costs by a specific date for the suit's restoration. The Chief Justice concurred with the decision, emphasizing the importance of ensuring parties are not unfairly affected by court errors.

---