Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the time granted under Rule 242 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala for producing stamp paper is to be excluded as part of the "time requisite" for obtaining a copy of the decree under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The expression "time requisite" in Section 12(2) covers the time properly required for obtaining the copy, but exclusion is denied where delay is attributable to the applicant's default or negligence. The earlier view that the period allowed under the Kerala Rules could not be excluded rested on rules that expressly treated delay against the applicant and on a context materially different from the present Rule 242. Rule 242, as amended to require "three clear working days", does not contain any stipulation that delay must count against the applicant. In that setting, compliance with the time granted by the Rule cannot be treated as default, and the time so allowed forms part of the period requisite for obtaining the copy.
Conclusion: The time granted under Rule 242 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala is excludable under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant succeeds, and the earlier contrary view is overruled.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural rule grants a defined time for taking a step necessary to obtain a copy, and the applicant acts within that time without default, the period so consumed is part of the "time requisite" deductible under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.