- (1.) The normal period of limitation for filing both these appeals (L.P.As. 397 and 557 of 1971) expired during the summer vacation of 1971. Each of the two appeals was, however, filed on July 12, 1971, that is the day on which the Court reopened after the expiry of the summer vacation. If the appeals had been proper, these would have been within time under Section 4 of the Limitation Act. It, however, appears that the appeals were filed without being accompanied by three sets of spare copies of the appeals and their accompanying documents as required by rule 2 of Chapter 2-C of Volume V of the Rules and Orders of this Court. An objection is taken by the respective respondents in each of the two appeals that since rule 3 of Chapter 2-C states that no appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent would be received by the Deputy Registrar unless it is accompanied by three typed copies of the documents mentioned in the rule, these appeals should be dismissed as barred by time. Reliance is placed for this objection on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Mahant Bikram Dass Chela Mahant Lachhman Dass Mahant, Amritsar V. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 1974 76 PunLR 451. Mr. Ram Lal Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellants in Amar Nath's case (L.P.A. 397 of 1971), submits that his clients' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (C.M. 9152 of 1972) should be allowed as the non-filing of the three sets of copies required by rules 2 and 3 ibid was due to a wrong practice which had grown in this Court, and in fact there was conflict of judicial opinion of the manner of interpretation of the rules so as to hold a particular rule to be mandatory or directory. He had cited a large number of judgments in support of the propositions pressed by him.
(2.) The question of consideration and decision of such applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act consequent on the judgment of the full Bench in the case of Mahant Bikram Dass Chela Mahant Lachhman Dass Mahant, Amritsar in arising daily in this Court in a very large number of cases. In these circumstances it appears to us to be necessary to refer the following question to the Full Bench :- "Whether the mere fact that according to the particular practice prevailing in the High Court before decision of the Full Bench in the case of Mahant Bikram Dass Chela Mahant Lachhaman Dass Mahant, Amritsar Letters Patent Appeals were entertained by the officer contrary to the requirements of rule 3 of Chapter 2-C of Volume V of the Rules and Orders of the High Court without being accompanied by three sets of spare paper-books, and time was allowed to file the same, and on filing the copies even beyond the expiry of the period of limitation the appeals were entertained and admitted, does or does not in law constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeals which were filed before the judgment of the Full Bench."
(3.) The papers of this case may be put up before the Chief Justice today for constituting a Full Bench to hear and decide the above question. This case will not be laid before the Full Bench on January 27, 1975.;