* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 14/2010
Date of Decision: January 25, 2010
OM PRAKASH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Harish Chand Sharma,
Advocate along with Appellant in
person
versus
VIPIN KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.1395/2010 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions
Application stands disposed of.
RSA 14/2010 and CM APPL.1394/2010 (stay)
1. Respondent Vipin Kumar Gupta as Proprietor of M/s. Jeevan Tours
RSA 14/2010 Page 1 of 4
& Travels filed a suit bearing No.66/2009 under the provisions of
Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.65,000/- in February, 2009.
Application of the appellant for leave to defend was dismissed by the
trial court and a decree was passed in favour of the Respondent vide
judgment and decree dated 01.07.2009. The said judgment and
decree was challenged by the appellant in RCA No.59/2009. The
said appeal was dismissed by the appellate court with the
observation that the same was barred by period of limitation.
Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate court, the second appeal
has been preferred.
2. Mr. Harish Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the appellate court did not appreciate the reasons for
delay in filing the appeal and also failed to consider the challenge to
the judgment and decree of the trial court on merits and, therefore,
substantial question of law is required to be formulated in this case.
3. I find no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant. The Appellate Court keeping in mind the provisions
contained under Section 9 and 12 of the Limitation Act and while
giving correct interpretation to the same, concluded that the appeal
RSA 14/2010 Page 2 of 4
was barred by period of limitation and he accordingly dismissed the
appeal.
4. Period of limitation for filing an appeal before the District Judge/
Additional District Judge, as the case may be, is 30 days from the
date of the pronouncement of the judgment. However, the day on
which the judgment is pronounced is to be excluded while
computing the period of limitation.
5. Appeal was filed by the appellant on 18.8.2009. Appellant applied
for certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial court on 1 st
August, 2009. After excluding the day of the pronouncement of the
judgment, 30 days period for filing an appeal expired on 31.07.2009.
Appellant, therefore, applied for certified copy after the expiry of
period of limitation. Once the period of limitation started running
against him, by virtue of Section 9 of the Limitation Act, nothing
could stop running of period of the limitation against the appellant.
Since appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree
after the expiry of limitation, any time taken for obtaining the
certified copy is of no consequence for computing the period of
limitation of 30 days against the appellant.
RSA 14/2010 Page 3 of 4
6. Even one days delay, under the circumstances, was fatal to the
appellant. Besides, no reason had been assigned in the application for
condonation of delay in filing an application for certified copy of the
impugned judgment and decree. The only ground made out in the
application was knowledge of the appellant about the judgment and
decree of the court. The appellate court noted that counsel for the
appellant was present in the court when the judgment was
pronounced. Therefore, appellant had the knowledge of the
judgment and decree on 1st July, 2009 itself.
7. Under these circumstances, I find no infirmity or illegality in the
order of the appellate court in appreciation of the provisions
contained under Section 9 and 12 of the Limitation Act. No
substantial question of law is required to be formulated in view of
the settled principle of law.
8. Hence, appeal being without merits is hereby dismissed.
(ARUNA SURESH)
JUDGE
JANUARY 25, 2010
vk
RSA 14/2010 Page 4 of 4