- (1.) This revision petition has arisen out of the following facts :- One Pritam Singh of village Dhilwan applied for partition of agricultural land measuring 92 bighas 7 biswas. During the pendency of those proceedings he died. Tejinder Singh the present respondent claiming himself to be the son of Pritam Singh applied to the court to be brought on the record as his legal representative. This prayer was opposed by the other side on the ground that he was not son of Pritam Singh deceased. However, the court allowed the prayer and Tejinder Singh was substituted in place of Pritam Singh and the suit was continued. The Assistant Commissioner, Barnala in whose Court the partition proceedings were pending decided the question of Tejinder Singh's title as a civil Court. This order was passed by him on 19th February, 1951. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the order of the Assistant Commissioner went in appeal to the Collector which was filed before him on 24th February, 1951. The Collector dismissed the appeal on 9th June, 1951 on the ground that the case was decided by the Assistant Commissioner as a civil Court and the appeal, therefore, did not lie in his court. It may be mentioned here that no decree sheet was prepared by the Assistant Commissioner. On 12th June, 1951 after the petitioners appeal was dismissed by the Collector they applied for copies of the order and the decree sheet. On 16th June, 1951 another application was submitted by the petitioners asking the court to prepare the decree sheet. On 21st June, 1951 the decree sheet was signed by the court and the copy was delivered to the petitioners on 25th June, 1951. The petitioners then filed the appeal before the District Judge on 27th June, 1951. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal being time barred. The petitioners have come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) Mr. Nehra, counsel for the petitioners urges that he is entitled to the deduction of all the time that elapsed between 18th February, 1951, and 21st June, 1951, when the decree sheet applied for was prepared, under section 12 of Limitation Act. His contention is that since the decree-sheet in question was not in existence till 21st June, 1951 he was not bound to apply for its copy and even if he had applied for such a copy he could not get it. This intervening time, therefore, according to him, should be regarded as period requisite for obtaining copies. In support of his contention he has cited number of authorities. The principal authority cited by him is a Full Bench case of Calcutta High Court Bani Madhub Mitter v. Matungini Dassi, 1886 13 ILR(Cal) 104.
(3.) It was held, "Where a suitor is unable to obtain a copy of a decree from which he desires to appeal, by reason of the decree being unsigned, he is entitled under section 12 of the Limitation Act to deduct the time between the delivery of the judgment and that of the signing of the decree in computing the time taken in presenting his appeal.";