MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar dated March 3, 1990 by which he has dismissed the first appeal holding it to be time- barred. The facts of the case giving rise to this second appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) SUIT No. 40/87 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of the Munsiff, Ganganagar against the defendant-respondent for his ejectment on four grounds viz., denial of title, default in payment of rent, nuisance and material alterations. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit on all the grounds. After hearing the parties, the suit was decried on three grounds on 21.8.82 by the learned trial Court. An application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree was moved on September 13, 1982. The office fixed 20th September, 1982 for their delivery. The copies were not ready. On 23.9.82, notice was pasted on the notice-board intimating that the certified copies were ready Certified copies were delivered and obtained on September 27, 1982. The first appeal before the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar was filed on October 5, 1982. After hearing the parties, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar on the ground of limitation as said above. It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar has seriously erred in entertaining the objection regarding limitation after eight years of the filing of the appeal during final arguments and in holding that the appeal was barred by five days. He further contends that the learned first appellate Court did not properly appreciate the provisions of Rules 234 and 235, General Rules (Civil), 1952 and also Mool Chand Soni v. Virender Kumar, 1981 W.L.N. 70. He contends that no notice was issued on 20th September, 1982 - the day fixed for the delivery of the certified copies, and as such the period upto September 27, 1982 would duly be taken into consideration while calculating the time required for obtaining the copies within the meaning of Section 12, Limitation Act. Rule 235, General Rules (Civil), 1952 was not applicable as admittedly the certified copies were not ready on the date fixed i.e., September 20, 1982 and the main purpose of this rule was not reckon the period for destroying certified copies.
(3.) THE respondent himself appears and argues the appeal. In reply, he contends that the learned trial Court has rightly interpreted the provisions of Rules 234 and 235, General Rules (Civil), 1952 and has rightly relied upon Mool Chand v. Virendra Kumar, 1981 W.L.N. 70. He further submits that there is no question of condonation of the delay under Section 5, Limitation Act as admittedly no application under Order 40 Rule 3-A, C.P.C. was moved alongwith the memo of appeal. He lastly submits that if this Court is allowing the appeal, the first appellate Court may be directed to dispose of it at an early date.;