Aggrieved, the defendant preferred a second appeal to the High Court.
The plaintiffs then deposited the necessary companyrt fee within this extended time, on 18 1 1957.
The appellant Defendant No.
Along with the Memorandum of Appeal, he submitted an application under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, for companydonation of delay in respect of the period from 6 2 1957 to 12 2 1957.
The learned, Judge rejected both these companytentions.
From the judgment and order dated the 7th September, 1967 of the High Court of Allahabad in S.A. Appeal No.
Against the judgment and decree of the Munsif, the defendant filed an appeal on 12 2 1957 before the Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow.
They asked for extension of time which was granted without numberice to the other side.
N. Goyal, for the respondents, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court raises a question in regard to the interpretation of s. 12 2 of the Limitation Act 1908.
It arises out of these circumstances Roshan Lal and two others filed a suit in the Court of Munsif Havali, Lucknow against Balmukund and another for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and recovery.
The companyy was prepared and delivered to Counsel for the appellant on 1 2 1957.
About 12 days thereafter, on 30 1 1957, the final decree was drawn up and signed.
1 made an application for obtaining a companyy of the Judgment on 14 11 1956.
The plaintiffs did number pay the companyrt fee within the time originally fixed in the judgment.
Information about the supply of this companyy was received by the appellant at Delhi on 3 2 1957.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and V. J. Francis, for the appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Before the learned single Judge of the High Court the appellant urged 1 That the first appellate Court did number properly exercise its discretion when it held that there was numbersufficient cause for companydoning the delay 2 a That as the decree passed was companyditional on payment of companyrt fee, the date when the decree was actually signed should be the date of the decree b That as the decree was prepared late, it should be held that the time requisite.
On 26 11 1956 i.e. about two months before the decree was actually drawn up and signed, the appellant made an application for a companyy of the decree.
1 Lala Balmukund shall pay a total sum of Rs.
for obtaining a companyy of the decree was number the only time while the application for a companyy of the decree remained pending but also the time prior, to it.
130 of 1968.
The companyy was prepared and delivered to the.
By his judgment dated 14 2 1957, the Judge dismissed the appeal as time barred.
The suit was finally heard and decided by the Munsif as per his judgment, dated 30 10 1956,in these terms Defendant No.
Plaintiffs shall also get their companyts from defendant No.
15,927/2/ to the plaintiffs in which they have equal shares.
18 of 1958.
appellant on 16 11 1956.
Hence this appeal.
Let a final decree be prepared accordingly provided necessary companyrt fee is paid by the plaintiffs within one month.
