G.K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD both the learned counsel. With the consent of both the learned counsel, this appeal is being finally disposed of at this stage.
(2.) THE short point involved in this appeal is regarding limitation in filing first appeal before the District Judge, Tonk. Mr. Ali contended that the learned Munsif passed the judgment on 19th July, '80. The appellant applied for certified copy of the said judgment, on 12th Aug., '80. 18th Aug., '80 was fixed for preparing of copy as well as delivery. From the seal on the certified copy, it appears that copy was not ready on 13th Aug., '80. The copy was delivered on 4th Sept., '80. The appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge on 6th Sept., '80. According to the learned District Judge, the appeal was preferred before him after 2 days. On this point of 2 days' delay, the appeal was dismissed by him. I have gone through the judgment of the learned District Judge. In his judgment, he has not mentioned as to why, the copy was not ready and delivered on 18th Aug. '80, the date which was fixed by the office for the purpose. He did not make any query from the clerk concerned as to why the copy was not ready on 18th Aug., '80. The copy was ready on 29th Aug., '80. Thereafter, the appellant was not given to understand about the readiness of the copy. According to Rule 234 of the Civil Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the court, in a circumstance, when a copy is not ready within the stipulated time, to give a notice or put a notice on the notice board about the preparation and readiness of the copy. There is nothing on the record to show that any notice was pasted on the notice-board about the fact that the copy was ready on 29th Aug. '80. Nor is there anything on the record to show that the appellant was given any notice to this effect. Therefore, the appellant had no notice about the preparation and readiness of the copy. The appellant has filed affidavit along with this appeal to the effect that from 18th Aug., '80 to 3rd Sept., '80, every day, he had been going to office for copy and inquired about the readiness of the copy. But, it was not ready. He has also alleged therein that he was not negligent in obtaining the copy, and that what ever delay has been caused, that is on account of the negligence of the office, which did not prepare the copy within the stipulated time, i. e., 18th Aug., '80. Mr. Jain, appearing on behalf of the respondents, could not satisfy this Court otherwise. After perusing the certified copy which was issued to the appellant, as well as the order of the learned District Judge, I am of the opinion that the learned District Judge has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of limitation. The appellant was not at all at fault. The delay was on account of negligence on the part of the office of the lower court, which did not prepare the certified copy in time.
(3.) THE appeal of the appellant is. therefore, accepted, and the case is remanded back to the District Judge, Tonk for hearing and deciding it on merit. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Tonk on 9th December, 1985. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.;