Limitation cannot justify mechanical rejection of an appeal where a certified copy is pending and affidavit evidence exists.

An appeal filed within the time granted by the High Court under Section 35 could not be rejected as time barred merely because a certified copy of the earlier order was not produced, especially where the petitioner had filed an affidavit referring to that order. The appellate authority was required to allow reasonable further time to obtain the certified copy instead of mechanically dismissing the matter on limitation. The rejection was held arbitrary and was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be decided on merits within the time fixed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner could be rejected as time barred for want of a certified copy of the earlier High Court order, and whether such rejection warranted interference.

Analysis: The petitioner had been granted time by the High Court to file an appeal under Section 35. The appeal was filed within the time allowed, but was dismissed on limitation because a certified copy of the earlier order was not produced. The Court found that, where the petitioner had filed an affidavit regarding the High Court order, the appellate authority ought to have allowed further time to obtain the certified copy instead of rejecting the appeal mechanically on limitation.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal as time barred was held to be arbitrary and was set aside. The appeal was directed to be decided on merits within the time fixed by the Court.

---