Limitation for certified copy requests runs only after a diligent application is made; prior adjudication can also bar later suit.

Time excluded for obtaining a copy of a decree begins only when a party makes a diligent application for that copy; a negligent interval before the application cannot be treated as "time requisite" under limitation law or excused under the condonation provision. On the facts, the delay arose from lack of diligence, so the appeal failed on limitation. The document also states that a prior adjudication, once treated as final and not effectively challenged within time, can operate as res judicata and bar a later suit and appeal. The resulting legal effect was that both challenges were untenable and the dismissal decree remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the period between the pronouncement of judgment and the making of an application for a copy of the decree could be excluded as "time requisite" under the law of limitation, and whether the delay could be excused under the condonation provision; (ii) Whether the earlier dismissal operated as res judicata so as to bar the subsequent suit and appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the period between the pronouncement of judgment and the making of an application for a copy of the decree could be excluded as "time requisite" under the law of limitation, and whether the delay could be excused under the condonation provision.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the appeal to be accompanied by a copy of the decree, and the time excluded under the limitation provision was the time properly and reasonably required for obtaining the copy. The Court held that this concept did not extend to a period before any application for the copy was made, because obtaining the copy begins only when the appellant takes a definite step towards securing it. Where the appellant remained negligent and allowed the limitation period to expire before applying for the copy, the earlier interval could not be treated as time requisite. For the same reason, the appellant could not obtain relief under the condonation provision, as the delay was attributable to carelessness and lack of diligence.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exclude the period before the application for copies and was not entitled to condonation of delay; the appeal failed on limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier dismissal operated as res judicata so as to bar the subsequent suit and appeal.

Analysis: The earlier order had already been treated by the courts below as a final adjudication barring the fresh suit, and the subsequent challenge to that order was itself rejected as time-barred. In view of the binding effect attributed to the prior adjudication and the failure of the appeal against it, the later suit could not survive. The Court also noted that the remedy depended on the order actually passed and that the challenge to the order could not be revived after the appeal against it had become time-barred.

Conclusion: The earlier judgment operated as res judicata and the subsequent challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals were untenable, one on limitation and the other on the bar of res judicata, and the decree of dismissal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Time excluded for obtaining a copy of a decree begins only when the appellant makes an application for the copy with reasonable diligence, and a negligent delay before such application cannot be treated as "time requisite" or excused under the condonation provision.

---