RAM PROSAD RAMNARAIN Vs. BEJOY KUMAR SADHUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule, which was obtained inter alia under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, raises some questions of importance. The points, are more or less pf first impression and require careful consideration, depending, inter alia, as they do, on the construction of the relevant statutes.

(2.) The Rule was obtained under the following circumstances: The petitioner was the defendant in Commercial Suit No. 304 of 1961 of the Third Bench of the local City Civil Court, brought by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of Rs. 2,678-03 np. as price of goods sold and interest. That suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge on December 23, 1963. The decree; however, was actually signed on January 17, 1964. An application for copies of the judgment and the decree appears to have been made oil January 21, 1964, and the copies were made ready and taken delivery of on February 22, 1964. On the next day, which was a Sunday, the petitioner saw the learned Advocate, Sri Asoke Kumar Sengupta, with a view to 6le an appeal from the above decree and he was told by the said learned Advocate that the last day for filing the same would be March 20, 1964. The appeal was actually filed on March 9, 1964. On August 1 following, the learned Stamp Reporter of this Court reported that the said appeal was time-barred, as, to it, the new Limitation Act applied and, under the same, after necessary and allowable exclusion or deduction of time for copies for purposes of computation of limitation, the appeal would be out of time by 14 days. The memorandum of appeal was thereafter returned to the learned Advocate on September 24, 1964, and it was refiled, in this Court, on the 28th following, with the present application, upon which the instant Rule was issued on November 11, 1964.

(3.) Three points were raised by Mr. J.K. Sengupta, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, in support of this Rule, in the first place, he argued that, to the above appeal, although it was filed on March 9, 1964. that is, after the new Limitation Act had come into operation, and although the decree under appeal was signed on January 17, 1964, which was also after the coming into operation of the said new Act, the old Limitation Act would apply as the decree had actually been passed on December 23, 1963, that is, prior to the coming into operation of the new Act and during the continuance of the old, and, under the said old Act, the appeal would be within time on a proper computation of limitation after allowing necessary or allowable deduction of time. Under this head, Mr. Sengupta further argued that, as this was an appeal From the local City Civil Court and would thus be governed by the City Civil Court Act, which, in its relevant section (Section 8(2)(b) ) refers to the old Limitation Act, which reference has not been amended by the substitution of the new Limitation Act in place of the old, whatever may be the position with regard to other appeals, that is, appeals not governed by the City Civil Court Act, the instant appeal would be governed by the old Limitation Act.