ary - Powered by Drishti IAS (https://law.drishtiias.

com/)

(HTTPS://WWW.DRISHTIJUDICIARY.COM)

Home (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/en) Blog (https://www.drishtijudicia

Limitation Act
Online Course (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/online-courses)
Home / Limitation Act

Classroom Program (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/classroom-programme)

Civil Law What's New

Language: Eng !ह# दी

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharaj House Trespass

Narain,
About Judiciary Exam ▾AIR Current
1968Affairs
SC 960
▾ Study
« Material
» ▾ (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-
Daily Practice ▾
affairs/house-
State Judic

 22-Sep-2023 trespass)
Free Downloads ▾ Courses ▾
Tags: The Limitation Act, 1963 (/tags/the-limitation-act-1963)
Non-Obstante
Supreme Court (/tags/supreme-court) Clause in S. 109A
(3) Of
Companies Act
Introduction 1956
(https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-
This case deals with the Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 that in affairs/non-
computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on obstante-clause-
which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time in-s-10-a-3-of-
requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed from shall be companies-act-
excluded. 1956)

Facts
Fundamental
In this case the respondents were tried for the various offences Right to
before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. Parenthood
The said learned judge acquitted them. Against the order of acquittal, (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-
the State went up in appeal to the High Court of Allahabad. affairs/fundamental-
right-to-
The said appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation and the
parenthood)
correctness of that decision is at issue in this appeal.
The memorandum of appeal was filed in court on March 29, 1963. The
order appealed from had been delivered on November 10, 1962. Rohinton Fali
According to the information contained in the copy of the order Nariman
produced along with the said memorandum the appeal was within (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/importa
time. personalities/rohinton-
It showed that that copy was applied for on November 15, 1962, and fali-nariman)
the same was ready on January 3, 1963.

Action in
Issues Involved Personam
(https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-
Whether the appeal was barred under the Limitation Act, 1908?
affairs/action-in-
personam)
Observations
 The Court observed that it was not necessary for the appellant to
apply for a copy of the order appealed immediately after the order Vested Interest
was pronounced. (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-
the-point/ttp-
The appellant could have, if it chose to take the risk, waited till the
transfer-of-
ninety-day period allowed to it by statute was almost exhausted.
property-
Even then the time required for obtaining a copy of the order would
act/vested-
have been deducted in calculating the period of limitation for filing
interest)
the appeal. Hence the expression 'time requisite' cannot be
understood as the time necessary for obtaining the copy of the
order. M/S Umesh Goel
The court said as far as the Section 12(2) is concerned it enlarges v. Himachal
the period of limitation prescribed under Entry 157 of Schedule I. Pradesh
Cooperative
That section permits the appellant to deduct from the time taken for
Housing Society
filing the appeal, the time required for obtaining the copy of the order
Ltd, (2016) 11 SCC
appealed from and not any lesser period which might have been
313
occupied if the application for copy had been filed at some other (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landma
date. judgement/partnership-
The Court further observed that every time an appeal is filed, the act/ms-umesh-
court not only will have to see whether the appeal is in time on the goel-v-himachal-
basis of the information available from the copy of the order filed pradesh-
along with the memorandum of appeal but it must go further and cooperative-
hold an enquiry whether any other copy had been made available to housing-society-
ltd-2016-11-scc-
the appellant and if so what was the time taken by the court to make
313)
available that copy
While stating the case J. N. Surty v. T. S. Chettyar 55 I.A. 161, the Court
stated, the question that fell for decision by the Judicial Committee Judicial Divorce
was whether in reckoning the time for presenting an appeal, the time under Muslim
required for obtaining a copy of the decree or judgment must be Law
excluded even though by the rules of the court it was not necessary (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-
to produce with the memorandum of appeal the copy of the decree the-point/ttp-
or judgment. muslim-
law/judicial-
The Court said that the word 'requisite' is a strong word; it may be
divorce-under-
regarded as meaning something more than the word 'required'.
muslim-law)
It means 'properly required' and it throws upon the pleader or counsel
for the appellant the necessity of showing that no part of the delay
beyond the prescribed period is due to his fault. Section 228-A of
The leading case on the subject is the decision of the full bench of the IPC
Madras High Court in Panjam v. Trimala Reddy I.L.R. 57 Mad. 560, (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-
wherein the court laid down that in Section 12 the words 'time affairs/section
requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree' mean the time beyond 228-a-of-ipc)

the party's control occupied in obtaining the copy which is filed with
the memorandum of appeal and not an ideal lesser period which
Major Changes
might have been occupied if the application for the copy had been Under Bhartiya
filed on some other date. Nyaya Sanhita
Bill, 2023
Conclusion (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editoria
changes-under-
The Court concluded that appeal referred by State is being dismissed bhartiya-nyaya-
being barred by limitation. sanhita-bill-2023)

Notes Food Adulteration

Limitation Act, 1963 (https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-
Section 12 (2) provides that in computing period of limitation for appeal affairs/food-
day on which judgment complained of pronounced and time requisite adulteration)
for obtaining copy of Order appealed from shall be excluded. Hence,
the appeal was dismissed.
Percival v. Wright
(1902) 2 Ch. 421
 Print This Article
(https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landma
judgement/company-
law/percival-v-
wright-1902-2-ch-
421)

Section 43 of
POCSO Act, 2012
(https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-
affairs/section-43-
of-pocso-act-
2012)

Pardoning Power
of the President
(https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-
the-point/ttp-
constitution-of-
india/pardoning-
power-of-the-
president)

Impact of
Telecommunication
Bill, 2023 on OTT
Online Services
(https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editoria
of-
telecommunication-
bill-2023-on-ott-
online-services)

Production of
Documents
(https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-
affairs/production-
of-documents)

Doctrine of
Dominus Litus
(https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/doctrine
of-civil-
procedure-
doct/doctrine-of-
dominus-litus)