CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Barmer dated November 16, 1992 by which he dismissed the regular appeal No. 17/91 Ranu Lal vs. Jheemi Devi & Others on the ground of limitation.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate Court seriously erred in holding that the appeal was filed after a delay of two months and twenty-five days. He contended that it is apparent from the endorsement made on the certified copies of judgment and decree dated 27. 05. 91, the application for obtaining them was made on 17. 05. 91, the certified copies were ready on 8. 8. 91 and were delivered on 3. 11. 91 & the appeal was filed on 3. 12. 91. He further submits that no notice of the preparation of the certified copies was issued and only notice for removing the defects was given on 4. 7. 91 and as such the delay of two days only occurred in filing the appeal. In reply, learned counsel for the non-petitioners submits that the jurisdiction of this Court while hearing revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. is very limited and learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any good cause for interference. There is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that no notice was issued after the preparation of the certified copies of the judgment and decree. It is well-settled law that when no notice is given regarding the preparation of the certified copies, the period from the date of the filing of the application to the date of the delivery of the certified I copies is to be excluded while counting the period of limitation. Accordingly, the period from 17. 5. 91 to 3. 11. 91 has to be excluded. Excluding this period, the delay of only 2 days actually occurred in filing the appeal. The petitioner had nothing to gain in filing the appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. It has been held in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Katiji (1), that such a delay should liberally be condoned. The learned Addl. District Judge, Barmer has acted with material irregularity and illegality by the exercise of his jurisdiction in not condoning the delay under the aforesaid facts and circumstances. The revision petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Barmer dated November 16, 1992 is set aside. He is directed to hear the appeal on merits. The parties will appear before him on 9th Decembers 1994. . ;