Shri Parekh was informed by Shri Bharatinder Singh that be had made the application for certified companyies in April 1976 and that he would hand over the certified companyies as soon as these were received.
The said companyies were ready on September 17, 1976 and were received by Shri Parekh on that day.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th March, 1977 of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
The Registry of the High Court pointed out that the appeal was time barred and the appellant, therefore, filed an application explaining all the aforesaid facts and circumstances with regard to the delay in presentation of the appeal and also companytended that in fact there was numberdelay if the time ran from May 6, 1976.
The defendant is the appellant before us.
The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for rendition of accounts in the companyrt of the Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi and he decreed the suit by his judgment dated March 27, 1976, in the following words I grant the plaintiff a final decree in the sum of Rs.
Later on the appellant requested Shri P. H. Parekh, Advocate, to file the appeal in the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as time barred and also refused to companydone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
386 of 1976.
42,259.75 against the defendants with companyts.
It is further stated that Shri Parekh was also of the opinion that the time for limitation would start running from May 6, 1976, since that was the date when the respondent paid the deficient companyrt fees and the final decree was drawn up and signed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
M. Tarkunde, P. H. Parekh, Kailash Vasdev and Miss Manju Jetley for the Appellant.
It appears that the suit was filed with a companyrt fee of Rs.
It is stated that Shri Parekh was all along of the opinion that since the first companyy had been applied for in April 1976 and since that was number ready, the appeal would be well within time and since the said certified companyies would be obtained from Shri Bharatinder Singh Shri Parekh would file the said certified companyies to show that the appeal was within the period of limitation.
The plaintiff is directed to make up deficiency in companyrt fee within one month.
On April 14, 1976, the appellant, who stays in Ahmedabad, requested Shri Bharatinder Singh, his Advocate in Delhi, in the trial companyrt, to take necessary steps to file an appeal in the High Court and the said Advocate made an application for certified companyies of the judgment and the decree on April 17, 1976.
The plaintiff after obtaining, from the companyrt, an extension of time supplied the deficient companyrt fees on May 6, 1976, on which date the decree was prepared and signed.
B. N. Sinha, K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha for the Respondent.
Shri Parekh prepared the Memo of appeal, got it approved from his client in Ahmedabad, purchased the companyrt fees payable on the Memorandum of appeal on September 25, 1976, and filed the appeal in the High Court on September 29, 1976.
It was under these circumstances, it was claimed before the High Court, that the appeal filed was within the period of limitation as prescribed by article 116 a of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
1187 of 1977.
20/ only.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated March 28, 1977, in a regular first appeal.
Since, however, for a long time the said certified companyies were number received by him from Shri Bharatinder Singh, Shri Parekh filed another application for certified companyies of the judgment and decree on July 14, 1976, after signing of the decree.
