https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313954 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. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2024 18:22:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313954 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313954