KESHAR SUGAR WORKS Vs. R C SHARMA
LAWS(ALL)-1950-5-9
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
May 11,1950
KESHAR SUGAR WORKS
Appellant
VERSUS
R.C.SHARMA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MANGU LAL V. KANDHAI LAL [REFERRED TO]BECHI V. AHSAN ULLAH KHAN [REFERRED TO]
PARBATI V. BHOLA [REFERRED TO]
SHRINATH SAH V. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR [REFERRED TO]
ALLAH BABUL V. GANGA SAHAI [REFERRED TO]
RAM ASRAY SINGH V. SHEONANDAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ASA RAM V. DARBAMAL [REFERRED TO]
SESHAYYA CHETTY V. SUBBADU [REFERRED TO]
ANANT RAM V. INAYAT ALI KHAN [REFERRED TO]
FAQIR BUX V. BILESHAR [REFERRED TO]
NIBARAN CHANDRA V.MARTIN AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
JYOTINDRANATH SARKAR V. LODNA COLLIERY CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
PRAMATHA NATH V. W.A. LEE [REFERRED TO]
J.N. SURTY V. T.S. CHETTYAR FIRM [REFERRED TO]
YUSUF ALI KHAN V. MOHAMMAD KAZIM ALI KHAN [REFERRED TO]
KALLU MAL V. MUNICIPAL BOARD,NAWABGANJ [REFERRED TO]
BALAPPA TAMMANNA V. DYAMAPPA BHUSAPPA [REFERRED TO]
KAHN CHAND V. GURDIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR V. MOTILAL [REFERRED TO]
GOKUL PRASAD V. KUNWAR BAHADUR [REFERRED TO]
BHAUSAHEB JAMBURAO V. SONABAI [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SALAM V. ABDUL KHALIQ [REFERRED TO]
JODUBIR SINGH V. SHEO NARESH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GABRIEL CHRISTIAN VS. CHANDRA MOHAN MISSIR [REFERRED TO]
SECY OF STATE VS. SMPARIJAT DEBI [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANSU BHUSAN PANDEY VS. MAJHO BIBI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMMA BOYEE VS. GOPAL ROW [REFERRED TO]
SATHULA VENKANNA VS. NAMUDURI VENKATAKRISHNAYYA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, AMRITSAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE [REFERRED TO]
SARAT CHANDRA NAG VS. RATI KANTA POLLEY [REFERRED TO]
UMDA VS. RUPCHAND [REFERRED TO]
MUKUNDA RAMKRISHNA VS. BISANSA SAKHARAMSA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SETH GIRDHARI LAL VS. SETH GAJA NAND [LAWS(DLH)-1973-11-29] [REFERRED]MUNICIPAL BOARD LUCKNOW VS. BHAGWAN DAS [LAWS(ALL)-1958-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
MOOL CHAND VS. VISHALA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1966-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASHANKAR MULSHANKAR VS. MAYABHAI LALBHAI [LAWS(BOM)-1951-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
BEHARI DASS VS. JAGDISH [LAWS(RAJ)-1952-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
NATHA SINGH FAUJA SINGH VS. TEJINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1957-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
LALA BALMUKUND DEAD VS. LAJWANTI [LAWS(SC)-1975-4-44] [OVERRULED]
SHAHJAHAN BEGUM VS. ZAHIRUL HASAN [LAWS(ALL)-1972-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
CHANABASAPPA VS. NARASING RAO GUNDE RAO [LAWS(KAR)-1959-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHBIR SINGH VS. SHAMBU DATT AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1963-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
MUKANDI RAM SANT RAM AND ORS. VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1956-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. MURARILAL [LAWS(MPH)-1956-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
MOOL CHAND VS. SMT. VISHALA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-1966-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
SARBJEET SINGH AND OTHERS VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, JAUNPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1961-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
NATHA SINGH VS. TEJINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1953-4-22] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
Wali Ullah, Sankar Saran, JJ. -
(1.)These are two connected applications for leave to appeal to the Federal Court under Order 45, Rule 2, Civil P. C. One is by the plaintiffs and the-other by the defendants. Both these applications arise out of Suit No. 66 of 1936 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge of Aligarh for recovery of a certain sum of money. The suit was contested by the defendants who claimed a set off and damages etc., to the extent of about Rs. 28,000/-. Eventually the learned Civil Judge dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs but decreed the claim of defendant 1, R. C. Sharma, viz., the applicant before us in F. C. A. No. 9 of 1947, for Rs. 24,817-8-9 together with pendente lite and future interest at Rs. 6/- per cent. per annum with costs. Against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge the plaintiffs filed F. A. No. 396 of 1941 in this Court which was valued at Rs. 31,472-12-0 (later it appears that this sum was raised to Rs. 35,000/-) and defendant l filed cross-objections which were valued at Rs. 3000/- only. On 21-2-1947, this Court partly allowed the appeal but dismissed the cross-objections with the result that in substitution of the decree passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge the High Court passed a decree for Rs. 4,447-9-3 in favour of defendant l with pendents lite and future interest at a certain rate.
(2.)It appears that a draft decree prepared by the office was amended and the decree of this Court was actually signed only on 17-10-1947. The plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court i.e., F. C. A. No. 23 of 1947 was filed on the list of December 1947. The decision of the question whether this application was filed within time depends entirely on the interpretation which is to be put on the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" as it occurs in Section 12, Limitation Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. It appears that there is great divergence of judicial opinion between this Court on the one hand and some other Highs Courts in India, viz., the Calcutta High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Patna High Court and the Chief Court of Oudh, on the other, in regard to the proper interpretation of the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" in Section 12, Limitation Act. Our attention has been invited to two Full Bench decisions of our own Court reported in Parbati v. Bhola, 12 ALL. 79 : (1890 A. W. N. 25), a decision of three learned Judges of this Court; and Bechi v. Ahsan Ullah Khan, 12 ALL. 46l:(l890 A.W.N. 149 F.B.), a decision of four learned Judges of this Court.
(3.)Similarly we have been referred to the cases of Murlidhar v. Motilal, A.I.R. (24) 1937 Bom. 162 : (I.L.R. (1937) Bom. 443 F. B.), Bani Madhub v. Matungini Dassi, 13 Cal. 104 (F.B.), Gabriel Christian v. Chandra Mohan, A. I. R. (23) 1936 Pat. 45 : (15 Pat. 284 F.B.) and three cases decided by the Oudh Chief Court, viz., Yusuf Ali Khan v. Mohammad Kazim Ali Khan, A.I.R. (27) 1940 Oudh 173 : (15 Luck. 376), Kallu Mal v. Municipal Board, Nawabganj, A. I. R. (29) 1942 Oudh 392 : (200 I. C. 608) and Jodubir Singh v. Sheo Naresh Singh, A. I. R. (31) 1944 Oudh 154 : (19 Luck. 456).
(2.)It appears that a draft decree prepared by the office was amended and the decree of this Court was actually signed only on 17-10-1947. The plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court i.e., F. C. A. No. 23 of 1947 was filed on the list of December 1947. The decision of the question whether this application was filed within time depends entirely on the interpretation which is to be put on the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" as it occurs in Section 12, Limitation Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. It appears that there is great divergence of judicial opinion between this Court on the one hand and some other Highs Courts in India, viz., the Calcutta High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Patna High Court and the Chief Court of Oudh, on the other, in regard to the proper interpretation of the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy" in Section 12, Limitation Act. Our attention has been invited to two Full Bench decisions of our own Court reported in Parbati v. Bhola, 12 ALL. 79 : (1890 A. W. N. 25), a decision of three learned Judges of this Court; and Bechi v. Ahsan Ullah Khan, 12 ALL. 46l:(l890 A.W.N. 149 F.B.), a decision of four learned Judges of this Court.
(3.)Similarly we have been referred to the cases of Murlidhar v. Motilal, A.I.R. (24) 1937 Bom. 162 : (I.L.R. (1937) Bom. 443 F. B.), Bani Madhub v. Matungini Dassi, 13 Cal. 104 (F.B.), Gabriel Christian v. Chandra Mohan, A. I. R. (23) 1936 Pat. 45 : (15 Pat. 284 F.B.) and three cases decided by the Oudh Chief Court, viz., Yusuf Ali Khan v. Mohammad Kazim Ali Khan, A.I.R. (27) 1940 Oudh 173 : (15 Luck. 376), Kallu Mal v. Municipal Board, Nawabganj, A. I. R. (29) 1942 Oudh 392 : (200 I. C. 608) and Jodubir Singh v. Sheo Naresh Singh, A. I. R. (31) 1944 Oudh 154 : (19 Luck. 456).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.