https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286059 The second appeal was held barred by limitation because it was filed beyond the prescribed period even after excluding the time spent in obtaining copies. The period between the judgment and the signing of the decree was not excluded, as the application for a copy of the decree was made only after the decree had already been signed. Applying the amended explanation to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the earlier view allowing such exclusion was no longer available. Reliance on the prior Full Bench decision did not justify condonation, and the delay was not condoned. en-us Wed, 15 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:52:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286059 The second appeal was held barred by limitation because it was filed beyond the prescribed period even after excluding the time spent in obtaining copies. The period between the judgment and the signing of the decree was not excluded, as the application for a copy of the decree was made only after the decree had already been signed. Applying the amended explanation to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the earlier view allowing such exclusion was no longer available. Reliance on the prior Full Bench decision did not justify condonation, and the delay was not condoned. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286059