https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313975 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. en-us Tue, 03 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 May 2024 11:23:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313975 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313975