Limitation for Letters Patent appeal: copy-obtaining time excluded under the Limitation Act, though one judge dissented.

In computing limitation for a Letters Patent appeal under the Rules of Court, the majority held that the rules operated as a special or local law, so Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 attracted Section 12(2) and allowed exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree. The phrase "within 60 days and not more" was treated as fixing the limitation period, not as expressly excluding statutory exclusion of copy-preparation time; the appeal was therefore treated as within time and the earlier Full Bench view was disapproved. Raghubar Dayal, J. dissented, holding that the rule fixed an outer limit and excluded enlargement, so Section 12(2) did not apply.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in computing the limitation for a Letters Patent appeal under the Rules of Court, the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree is excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: The majority held that the Rules of Court governing Letters Patent appeals were special or local law for limitation purposes, and that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 made applicable the general provisions in Section 12(2) for determining the period of limitation. It was further held that the words "within 60 days and not more" in the rule did not expressly exclude the statutory exclusion of time requisite for obtaining copies, because exclusion of time is distinct from extension of limitation. On that basis, the appeal was treated as filed within time after excluding the period spent in obtaining the decree copy. The earlier Full Bench view was treated as no longer correct.

Conclusion: The time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree was to be excluded, and the issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Dissenting Opinion: Raghubar Dayal, J. held that the rule itself fixed 60 days as the full and outer limit for filing the appeal, expressly excluded other modes of enlargement, and therefore Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply. On that view, the time requisite for copies could not be excluded.

---