N. N. Mithal, J. - (1.) An application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act is the subject of consideration by us. On 20-8-1990 when the Stamp Reporter gave his report on the memo of appeal it mentioned that the appeal would be within time up to 14th October, 1990. The appeal was actually presented on 21st August, 1990.
(2.) The appeal came up for admission before the Court when it was observed that the certified copy of the judgment appeared to have been tampered with. In the column meant for indicating the date when the copy was ready there appeared to be some overwriting and in place of 2Ist May, 1990 the words and figures 27-7-90 seemed to have been overwritten. On suspicion being aroused the court directed the Stamp Reporter to submit a fresh report. In the meantime Sri Y. S. Rathor, had also put in appearance for the respondent to oppose it and, therefore, he was also granted time to file a counter-affidavit but none has yet been filed. The Stamp Reporter submitted a fresh report on 27th August, 1990 showing his inability to give any definite report in the matter unless a report from the District Judge, Gorakhpur is obtained as to the correct date when the copy was ready. Accordingly, on 7-9-1990 the Court sent for the report of the District Judge which has since been received in a sealed cover with a covering letter dated 12th Oct., 1990.
(3.) When the matter again came up before the Court on 8-3-1991 the sealed envelop was opened and the report of the District Judge was examined. According to the report, which is based on entries in the register of certified copies, the certified copy was ready on 21-5-90 and not on 21-7-90 and had been delivered to the applicant on 25-5-90. The Stamp Reporter in compliance with the direction of the Court again submitted a fresh report on 18-3-91 to the effect that the appeal was presented seven days beyond time. In the meantime an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by an affidavit was also moved on 27-2-91 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on 21-3-91 to explain the delay in the light of the report of the District Judge.;