Tulsi Charan Das Adhikary vs Ram Hari Mandal

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—This Rule was obtained by the Petitioner against an order of the learned Munsif, sitting as the Appellate Officer under the Land Reforms Act, holding that the Petitioner''s appeal before him was time-barred and no condonation of delay or extension of time could be granted either as a matter of law or on facts.

The matter arises in this way. The order in question was passed by the Ehagchash Officer on May 15,1961. The appeal was presented to the Court of the learned Munsif on June 19,1961. On a report by the office that the appeal was prima facie time-barred, it having been filed late by two days, the Petitioner was asked to show cause how the appeal would be maintainable. Thereafter, he filed a petition showing cause, and upon his affidavit in support of the said petition the appeal was admitted provisionally subject to objection at the hearing on the ground of limitation. The Respondent opposite party upon entering appearance in the appeal took objection on the ground of limitation or, in the words, claimed that the appeal was time-barred and there was no case for condonation of delay or extension of time either as a matter of law or on facts.

At the final hearing before the learned Munsif on this question of limitation the learned Munsif held against the present Petitioner on all the above points rejecting his reliance on Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also rejecting his contention that the time requisite u/s 12 of the Limitation Act, which would obviously apply-to the instant case, would run in the circumstances of this case and in matters like the present upto the date of delivery of the copy of the Appellant and not merely to the date when the copy was made ready for delivery according to the office report.

It is not disputed that, if the above proposition be correct and the time requisite u/s 12 be taken upto the date of delivery of the copy to the Appellant, the instant appeal would be within time. The Petitioner, however, could not satisfy the learned Munsif that the law required that, in cases like the present, the above proposition would be acceptable.

Before the learned Munsif, reference was made in the above connection to Rule 530 of the Civil Rules and Orders which, according to the learned Munsif, could not apply to proceedings or records before the Board, and that Rule not being applicable and reference to no other provision of law on the point being made before the learned Munsif, the Petitioner''s above contention was rejected by him.

It appears to us that, even though the above Rule in Civil Rules and Orders may not apply to proceedings or to records before the Board, there can be no question that in such cases the matters must be governed by the Bengal Records Manual, which is a comprehensive provision on the first (vide Rule 273). Moreover, the said Maunal has been speficifiedly made applicable to cases of copies under the Land Reforms Act by Rule 10 framed under the said Act. Rule 290, read with Rule 286 of this Records Manual, definitely requires that a counter-foil to be given to the Applicant for copy on which the date and hour at which the copy will be ready, will be noted by the office. On the unchallenged sworn statement of the Petitioner before us this was not done in the instant case as, according to the practice prevalent in this particular Board, no counterfoil was given in the matter of copies, far less any counter-foil on which the above noting was made. Clearly, therefore, the Appellant had no opportunity of knowing the date on which the copy would be made ready for delivery, and that was because of a defective procedure followed in this particular office. The Appellant, under the above Rules, was entitled to the intimation which was not given to him and the absence of which presumably was responsible for his not taking the copy as soon as it was made ready for delivery. In the circumstances, the time requisite for obtaining the copy in question must extend upto the date on which the Appellant actually got delivery of the same, and once that view is taken, on what we have already said, the instant appeal must be held to have been filed within time and no question of its being time-barred and no question either of condonation of delay or extension of time would arise.

We would, accordingly, make this Rule absolute, set aside the impugned order of the learned Munsif and, holding that the instant appeal before him was filed within time, direct that the same be registered if otherwise in form and that it will thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

There will be no order for costs in this Rule.

Let the records go down as quickly as possible.

S.K. Chakravarti J.

I agree.