P L D 1962 Azad J & K 21 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--‑This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Muzaffarabad dated 13‑1‑61, by which the appeal of the plaintiffs‑appellants against the judgment and decree of the Sub‑Judge, Muzaffarabad dated 3‑6‑1955, was dismissed as time barred. The judgment of the Sub‑Judge was delivered on 3‑6‑

55. An application for obtaining the copy of the judgment was made on 7‑6‑55, and the copy was distributed on 15‑6‑55, but it was incomplete in the title of the suit, therefore, it was returned to the copying department and a fresh copy was prepared and distributed to the appellants on 14‑7‑

55. The appeal before the District Judge which is file No. 22, Civil Appeal of 1955, was filed on 20‑7‑

55. The learned District Judge was of the view that since copy of the judgment had been originally supplied on 15‑6‑55, appellants were not entitled to any extension of time beyond 15‑6‑

55. Therefore, he held that the appeal which was filed on 20‑7‑55, was time barred. The limitation for filing an appeal for the District Judge was 30 days. The learned District Judge, further, remarked in his judgment that the amended copy having been supplied on 14‑7‑55, the appeal should have been immediately filed in any case and the appellants have to account for the delay of each day beyond 14‑7‑55, and they having failed to show any reasonable cause for such delay are not entitled to any extension of time. The learned District Judge has made a wrong approach in the matter of holding the appeal to be time‑barred. The case is covered by section 12 of the Limitation Act which is reproduced below :‑ "In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which period is to be ;, reckoned shall be excluded. (2) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, and application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed, shall be excluded. (3) Where a decree is appealed from or sought to be reviewed the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which it is founded shall also be excluded. (4) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an application to set aside an award the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded." According to the provisions of section 12 the appellants were entitled to exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment as also of the decree. The copy furnished on 15‑6‑55, was incomplete, therefore, it was taken back and a fresh copy complete in all respects prepared and distributed to the appellants on 14‑7‑

55. The time spent in obtaining the copy i.e., from 7th June 55, to 14‑7‑55, would be time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment within the meaning of section 121 of the Limitation Act. The appellants are entitled to add these 37 days to the ordinary period of limitation which is 30 days and it shall be said that they could file an appeal within 67 days of the date of the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal was well within this time. It cannot be said that the appellants should' have filed the appeal immediately on receipt of the copy of the judgment of the trial Court on 14‑7‑

55. No appellant can be forced to file his appeal on any particular date. He is at liberty to file his appeal even on the last date of limitation. The rule that the appellant has to account for the delay of each and every day beyond the prescribed time, in order to claim extension, would B apply where section 5 of the Limitation Act comes into play but not in the case of section 12 of the Limitation Act. Time requisite for obtaining copy of the judgment or of the decree can be excluded as a matter of right. The appeal was filed well within time. We, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 13‑1‑61, remand the case back to him with the direction that he should restore his Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1955, to its original No. and give a fresh judgment after hearing the parties. Parties have been directed to attend the Court of the District Judge, Muzaffarabad on 12‑5‑

62. K. B. A.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.