TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (12) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aggrieved by a common order disposing of two appeals, have been held to have been filed within the period of limitation. The High Court has condoned the delay in filing the revision petitions subject to payment of Rs. 750/- by way of costs by the petitioner to the respondent before it. The respondent in the High Court has filed these two appeals by special leave. 3. The facts in brief. The appellate order, which is the subject matter of revision in the High Court, was passed on 25.9.2001. Application for obtaining certified copy of the order was made on 9.11.2001. Certified copy was delivered on 24.12.2001. The civil revisions were filed in the High Court on 2.1.2002. The High Court has held that there was sufficient cause for the appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which are reproduced hereunder:-" 12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings. xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded". " 29. Savings. xxx xxx xxx (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hough such copy may not necessarily be required to be filed along with appeal, application or memo of representation or review. No distinction is drawn between decrees or orders pronounced on the original side or the appellate or revisional side. No application is required to be made seeking the benefit of Section 12 of Limitation Act; it is the statutory obligation of the Court to extend the benefit where available. Although the language of sub-Section (2) of Section 12 is couched in a form mandating the time requisite for obtaining the copy being excluded from computing the period of limitation, the easier way of expressing the rule and applying it in practice is to find out the period of limitation prescribed and then add to it the time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or the power to condone delay by reference to proviso appended to Section 25(2) of the Act shall be exercisable for a period subsequent to the obtaining of the certified copy of the impugned order but not to the period before it. Such is not the prohibition contained in any of the said provisions. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Court may be called upon to exercise its discretionary power to condone by the delay occasioned by the time lost either before applying for certified copy or after the delivery thereof. 9. In Murlidhar Shrinivas vs. Motilal Ramcoomar, 1937 AIR(Bombay) 162, the Full Bench, speaking through Beaumont, CJ, held that the Court cannot impose upon statutory right of an appellant a restrict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the exclusion of such time. The time running between the date of application and the date of pronouncement of order when the litigant chooses to make an advance application in anticipation of the pronouncement of the decision of the Court cannot by any stretch of imagination be called the time requisite for obtaining the copy. However, it is in that context that the Court observed that the object of the Legislature was to enable the party to exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order after the period of limitation has commenced. While drafting the reasoning in support of the review taken by it the Court went on to observe -" if the time taken for obtaining the copy of the order before the commencement of the period of....