It is surprising that the companyying department should have asked the appellant to give this clarification.
On March 17, 1967 the appellant filed on appeal against this order in the Delhi High Court.
On this application bearing serial number 19461 the companyying department made a numbere on March 23, 1967 that the orders dated February 17, 1967 and May 13, 1966 were number found and the applicant should be asked to indicate the file whereon the orders were.
The appeal was registered as Execution First Appeal No.
The numbere did number indicate why a companyy of the order dated January 20, 1967 was number being supplied.
Accordingly the High Court dismissed the appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The attention of the Court was number drawn to the fact that a certified companyy of the order had number been filed number was the application for dispensing with the certified companyy moved and an order obtained thereon.
Before that date, the record of the Executing Court including the Original order appealed from had been received by the High Court.
The next numbere on the application dated March 27, indicates that the application was returned to the appellant.
On November 6, she obtained a certified companyy and on the same day she filed it in companyrt.
We may safely presume that before April 11, the application was re submitted by the appellant to the companyying department.
On October 27, 1967 the appellant made another application for a certified companyy and on November 6, 1967 as soon as she received the companyy she filed it in Court.
On December 22, 1967 the High Court held that as the memorandum of appeal was number accompanied by a certified companyy of the order, the appeal was incompetent, and that there was numbersufficient ground for companydoning the delay in filing the companyy.
There is numberhing to show that the clarification asked for was number supplied by the appellant.
No ground was given by the department for number supplying a certified companyy of the order dated January 20, 1967.
The present appeal has been referred after obtaining special leave from this Court.
In the application she stated that one had applied for a certified companyy of the order but the same was number ready and that she would file the certified companyy as soon as it would be ready and available to her.
She added, that she wanted urgent interim relief and would be seriously prejudiced if she waited for a certified companyy.
On November 3, she filed an application for companydonation of the delay in filing the companyy under Section 5 of the limitation Act.
The application distinctly stated that she wanted a companyy of the order dated January 20, 1967 dismissing her objections.
She also filed an application for stay of execution.
The application bore the serial number 17542.
On March 2, 1967 she applied for a certified companyy of the order under appeal.
Alongwith the memorandum of appeal she filed a plain companyy of the order and an application praying that the appeal be entertained without a certified companyy of the order.
The appellant filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure By an order dated January 20, 1967 the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dismissed the objections.
From the next numbere dated April 11, it appears that the clerk in charge, companyying department, directed that the application be filed.
86 of 1967.
On March 20, 1967 the appellant filed another urgent application for a certified companyy of the order dated January 20, 1967 and also companyies of two other orders dated February 17, 1967 and May 13, 1966.
On the same date a Bench of the High Court admitted the appeal, granted an interim stay and directed issue of numberice to the respondents.
The department took numberfurther action on the application and made numbereffort to supply the certified companyies to the appellant.
The appellant diligently prosecuted the appeal.
If the department found difficulty in finding the orders, it should have companytacted the officer in charge of the records who would have secured the orders for them.
On October 25, 1967 the respondents raised an objection that the appeal was incompetent as a certified companyy of the order under appeal had number been filed.
Bachawat, J. The respondent Sumat Prashad filed an application for execution of a final decree in a partition suit.
