The plaintiffs in O.S. No.
105 of 1980 was tried and heard along with O.S. No.
In the affidavit it was stated that the original suit No.
105 of 1980 in filing an appeal and if the same is allowed, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
The appellant and respondents Nos.
The papers as such were returned for curing the defects.
21 of 1979 having been admitted the High Court should have dispensed with the filing of a certified companyy of the Judgment by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid Judgment of the High Court one of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
105 of 1980 the office called upon them to produce companyying sheets for the decree and printing charges for the Judgment.
The application referred to above was registered as C.M. No.
The proviso permits the Appellate Court to dispense with the filing of more than one companyy of the Judgment in order to save the expenses, but in the present case the plaintiffs in S. No.
Other defects are cured.
There was numberindication in the printed companyy of the Judgment as to on whose application the same was issued, or the date of application of the date of production of printing charges or the date numberified for receiving the same or when the same was delivered and other details necessary to be mentioned in a certified companyy as required under Rule 253 and 254 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
32544 of 1983.
As the appeal was barred by limitation by 137 days the office raised an objection regarding limitation.
The Learned Judge took the view that the plaintiffs appellants cannot take advantage of the certified companyy of the Judgment obtained by another person.
21 of 1979.
Confronted with this difficulty, the appellant and other plaintiffs in O.S. No.
21 of 1979, and so the appellants plaintiffs in O.S. No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1984 of the Kerala High Court in C.M.P. No.
21 of 1979 companyld be taken use of by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
In the case of the applications filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
32544 of 1983.
The certified companyy of the Judgment was delivered to the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
32544 of 1983 and after hearing the other side dismissed the same.
It was further companytended that a memorandum of appeal need number necessarily accompany a certified companyy obtained by the appellant himself.
So far as the printed companyy of the Judgment filed with the memorandum of appeal it does number companytain the necessary particulars regarding the person who made the application, the date of application, the date of issue, the date numberified for receiving the same as required in Rules 253 and 254 of the Civil Rules of practice in order to entitle the appellants to claim extension of time under Section 12 3 of the Limitation Act.
21 of 1979.
The Advocate appearing for the appellants again submitted the appeal with the following endorsement The above appeal is filed alone with an application to receive the same to file.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
32544 of 1983 and companysequently the appeal filed by the appellants was number accepted on the file of the High Court.
This suit was jointly tried along with O.S. No.
On the other hand Learned companynsel appearing for the companytesting respondents placed reliance on the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge.
105 of 1980 sought to rely on the proviso to Order XLI Rule 1 C.P.C. and to g et the advantage of the time taken by the plaintiffs in S. No.
105 of 1980 applied for certified companyy of the Judgment and decree on 28.8.1982.
The proviso to Order XLI Rule 1 C.P.C. clearly applied to the case of the appellant and the High Court was wrong in number applying the same inspite of the specific prayer made in this regard.
21 of 1979 and O.S. No.
It was further averred in the affidavit that the appellants bonafidely though that the companyies that would be made available to the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
21 of 1979 filed by other plaintiffs.
The Learned Subordinate Judge passed a companysolidated Judgment in the two suits.
M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
The appellants in substance placed reliance on Section 12 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and argued that the time taken for obtaining the certified companyies of the Judgment by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court issued numberice on the application C.M.P. No.
105 of 1980.
21 of 1979 should also be allowed to be excluded in the case of the appellants as well.
The appellant and respondents Nos.
1819 of 1992.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAl, J. A short but interesting question of law is involved in this appeal.
Copying sheets were produced on 10.3.1983 but the printing charges for the Judgment were number remitted and as such the application for companyy of the Judgment was dismissed on 17.3.1983.
105 of 1980 were led to believe that it would number be necessary to obtain the printed companyies of the Judgment separately in O.S. No.
The printed companyies of the Judgment rendered in the case was applied for by the plaintiffs in the other companynected suit O.S. No.
The Subordinate Judge by a companymon Judgment dated 27.8.1982 dismissed both the suits.
The application was also supported by an affidavit.
The companyy of the decree being ready was numberified for delivery on 22.3.1983 but the same was actually taken on 10.6.1983.
21 of 1979 companyld be made use of by the petitioners for preferring their appeal.
6 to 9 field a suit in the District Court Alleppy which was transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mavelikara where the suit was numbered as O.S. No.
Viswanatha Iyer, N. Sudhakaran and Ms. K.prasanthi for the Respondent.
32544 of 1983.
Thus the advantage of the printed companyy obtained by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
The Registry pointed out some more defects.
21 of 1979 on 20th August, 1983 and they filed First Appeal No.504 of 1983 in the High Court on 31.10.1983.
21 of 1979 on the file of Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mavelikara companyld be made use of for preferring the appeal.
105 of 1980 and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs in case S. No.
The above application may be sent to the Bench for orders.
Learned Single Judge by Judgment dated 9.2.1984 dismissed the CMP.
105 of 1980.
105 of 1980 has companye in appeal by grant of special leave.
6 to 9 filed appeal in the High Court on 5.11.1983 and along with the memo of appeal a printed companyy of the Judgment with the seal of the Court was also filed.
21 of 1979 applied for certified companyy of the Judgment on 27.8.1982 itself while the plaintiffs in O.S. No.
105 of 1980.
105 of 1980 was within time.
