Niadar Mal (Insolvent) and Jhuman Lal Vs Mulraj

Allahabad High Court 2 Jan 1920 (1920) ILR (All) 260
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Hon'ble Bench

Grimwood Mears, C.J; Tudball, J

Final Decision

Allowed

Judgement Text

Translate:

Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Tudball, J.@mdashThis is an application by a creditor who wishes to raise various questions in an appeal from the

order of discharge granted by the learned Judge of Saharanpur. The only matter before us is whether the appeal should be allowed, it being

contended that the appeal is out of time. Having regard to the terms of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, we are of opinion that Section 12 merely

extends the time for any given appeal by the period which it is necessary to obtain essential documents for the court to which the appeal is being

made and that it does not contemplate and does not allow an appellant to apply for a series of documents one after the other and to claim that his

time of appeal is extended merely because he has applied within the successive periods of what he contends is the extended limitation of time. In

other words an appellant must apply u/s 12 once and for all for every essential document before the period of limitation of his appeal has run out.

He cannot seek in aid the extended period if he finds later that an essential document is omitted. Well, that being so, it is quite clear that the ninety

days had expired without the appellant having applied for a copy of the. decree and therefore as far as this application seeks to be brought within

the provisions of Section 12 and is an application as of right, the application must fail. But Mr. Nihal Chand has asked that this appeal may be

admitted on the grounds which are allowed to us in our discretion. We have considered the matter and we are willing to admit the appeal and we

are influenced to some extent by the fact that the order of the District Judge of Saharanpur seems to us an order difficult to work out in practice

and one which on consideration by the High Court may require'' some modification, In these circumstances we allow the application, not u/s 12 but

u/s 5, and we give to the respondent on the application the costs of this application and fix them at Rs. 32.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods
Oct
24
2025

Story

Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods
Read More
Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date
Oct
24
2025

Story

Patna HC: Promotions Valid Only from Actual or DPC Date
Read More