Through this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The judgment and decree was passed on 17.7.2007, the petitioner filed application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree on 24.7.2007, its certified copy was prepared on the same day i.e. 24.7.2007 but the delivery was obtained on 22.10.2007. The impugned judgment and decree was passed on 17.7.2007. The period for filing appeal is 90 days, thus' it could have been filed till 16.10.2007, whereas the appeal was filed on 25.10.2007 with a delay of 9 days.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, it was incumbent upon the Copying Agency to give intimation to the appellant on preparation of the copy of judgment and decree.
3. The Court order passed on 21.6.2007 reveals that the learned counsel for the appellant sought time to argue the application for condonation of delay especially with regard to "receipt" given to the appellant at the time of submission of request for certified copy. On being specifically asked, learned counsel for the appellant could not provide any reason for non-providing receipt even till to-date. In computing the period under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 the day on which the judgment complained was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of decree shall be excluded. In the instant case judgment was pronounced on 17.7.2007 certified copy applied on 24.7.2007 and it was prepared on the same date i.e. 24.7.2007. Appeal under the circumstances should have been filed till 16.10.2007, whereas the same was filed on 25.10.2007 with a delay of 9 days. "Time requisite" in the case in hand came to end as soon as copy was ready for delivery i.e. On 24.7.2007.
4. Moreover the word "intimated" as provided in Section 12(5) does not mean that the copying agency after preparation shall intimate the applicant in this regard as being argued by learned counsel for the appellant, it is the "receipt" given at the time of application which is an intimation as visualized under Section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908. Learned counsel for the appellant could not provide any plausible reason to explain delay of each and every day in late filing of the appeal.
Reliance is placed on Fazal Rehman v. Karim Gul and others (1988 SCM R 1256).