Limitation and certified copy time: delay in paying printing charges after notice is not excludable as requisite time.

For limitation under Article 156 and Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act, only the period properly required for obtaining a copy with due diligence is excludable as "time requisite". Delay caused by an applicant's failure to deposit printing charges after notice under Rule 234 of the Civil Rules of Practice is attributable to the applicant's own default and not to the copy-obtaining process. The Court treated the week allowed to pay such charges as a mere indulgence, not an enlargement of excludable time. Accordingly, that delay could not be excluded in computing limitation, and the appeal was out of time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period allowed for depositing printing charges after notice under Rule 234 of the Civil Rules of Practice is to be excluded as part of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment for the purpose of limitation under Article 156 and Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The expression "time requisite" means the period properly required for obtaining the copy with due diligence. Time lost because the applicant delays payment of printing charges after notice is attributable to the applicant's default and not to the process of obtaining the copy. A consistent practice of the Court and the former High Courts had been not to exclude such delay, and that practice had the force of an established rule of court. The allowance in Rule 234 for a week's time to pay the charges was only an indulgence to the applicant and did not enlarge the period to be excluded for limitation.

Conclusion: The period taken by the applicant to deposit printing charges after notice is not excludable as time requisite for obtaining the copy. The appeal was therefore out of time.

Final Conclusion: Delay caused by an applicant's failure to promptly deposit printing charges after notice cannot be excluded in computing limitation for an appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Only the period genuinely and properly required for obtaining a copy with due diligence is excludable under the limitation provision, and delay attributable to the applicant's own neglect or inaction is not part of that period.

---