Tukaram Gopal v. Pandurang Sadaram

Chandavarkar, J.:— The decree in the suit out of which this second appeal arises was passed by the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Malegaon on the 22nd of April, 1899. His Court was closed from the next day to the 5th of June on account of the summer vacation. On the 5th of June, when the Court reopened, the present appellant applied for a copy of the Subordinate Judge's decree, and presented his appeal against that, decree to the District Judge on the 14th of June.

The District Judge has rejected the appeal as time-barred on the ground that the appellant could have, according to a circular of this Court, applied for a copy of the. Subordinate. Judge's decree during the vacation as the office was open for that purpose.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act says that if the period of limitation prescribed for any appeal expires on a day when the Court is closed, the appeal may be presented on the day that the Court reopens. In the present case, however, on the 5th June when the Court reopened, the appellant's right of appeal was subsisting, and so long as it was subsisting he was entitled under section 12 to apply for a copy of the decree and ask that the time requisite for obtaining it should be excluded in computing the period of limitation for the appeal. This was the view taken in Siyadat-un-nissa v. Muhammad and Sitaram v. Ramji

Following those rulings we reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the case, with a direction that the appeal be admitted and determined in accordance with law. Costs to abide the result.

Decree reverted and cate remanded.