ORDER
1. This is an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. But, it is the case of the appellant that there is no delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant, the judgment of the learned single Judge was rendered on 24.3.2003. The application for certified copy was made on 26.3.2003. The required stamps were called for on 5.4.2003. They were produced the same day. The copy was made ready on 7.4.2003 and it was delivered to the appellant on 7.4.2003 itself. According to the appellant, he was entitled to exclude the period from 26.3.2003 to 7.4.2003, the period during which the application for the certified copy was pending. The last day for filing the appeal was 6.5.2003, being the 30th day. The appeal was filed on that day. Hence the appeal was filed in time in terms of the Limitation Act in the context of Section 12 thereof. It is submitted that the Rule of the High Court which provides that the appeal should be treated as having been filed only when the defects are rectified, goes against the scheme of the Limitation Act and Section 12 thereof and hence it cannot prevailed. It is pointed out that if at all there was any delay, it was only in rectifying the defects and not in filing the appeal itself. Counsel went to the extent of arguing that the Rule was invalid since it runs against the scheme of Limitation Act, 1963. We find with reference to the relevant dates mentioned above, that the appeal was filed on the last day of limitation, namely, the 30th day. In that view, the appeal has to be treated as being in time. Whether Rule 76 of this High Court Rules is liable to be declared invalid need not be considered for the purpose of this case, since on the facts we find that the appeal has been filed in time. That question need be considered only as and when the occasion for it arises. In the view we have taken as above that the appeal is filed within time, this petition is closed as unnecessary.