Limitation for certified copies: applicant-caused delay is not "time requisite" under Section 12(2).

Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act excludes only the period genuinely required by the court to prepare and deliver a copy; it does not include delay caused by the applicant in supplying copying requisites. The three clear days under Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice merely protect the copy application from rejection and do not create a legal fiction that the entire period is "time requisite" for limitation purposes. Accordingly, the applicant's lack of promptness could not be counted in computing limitation, and the appeal was treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the three clear days available under Rule 242 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice for producing copying sheets are automatically excludable as "time requisite" for obtaining a copy under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 12(2) excludes only the time requisite for obtaining the copy, and the expression has to be understood as the time taken by the office in preparing and delivering the copy, not the period consumed by the applicant in supplying the requisites. The allowance of three clear days under Rule 242 is only a protection against rejection of the copy application and does not create a legal fiction that the whole period is part of the time requisite. The reasoning in prior decisions was applied to hold that delay attributable to the applicant's want of promptness cannot be counted in computing limitation.

Conclusion: The three days under Rule 242 are not automatically excludable under Section 12(2); the appeal was therefore beyond time, on the issue decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Time excluded under Section 12(2) is confined to the period genuinely required by the court for making the copy, and any delay attributable to the applicant in supplying requisites is not part of the time requisite for limitation purposes.

---