Case: Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari &amp; Others

1. The respondent Sumat Prashad filed an application for execution of a final decree in a partition suit. The appellant filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an order dated January 20, 1967 the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dismissed the objections. It is common case before us that under the relevant Civil Rules and Orders the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, was not required to draw up a formal expression of the decision under Section 47 as a decree, On March 17, 1967 the appellant filed an appeal against this order in the Delhi High Court. Along with the memorandum of appeal she filed a plain copy of the order and an application praying that the appeal be entertained without a certified copy of the order. In the application she stated that she had applied for a certified copy of the order but the same was not ready and that she would file the certified copy as soon as it would be ready and available to her. She added that she wanted urgent interim relief and would be seriously prejudiced if she waited for a certified copy. She also filed an application for stay of execution. On the same date a Bench of the High Court admitted the appeal, granted an interim stay and directed issue of notice to the respondents. The attention of the Court was not drawn to the fact that a certified copy of the order had not been filed nor was the application for dispensing with the certified copy moved and an order obtained thereon. The appeal was registered as Execution First Appeal No. 86 of 1967. The appellant diligently prosecuted the appeal. On October 25, 1967 the respondents raised an objection that the appeal was incompetent as a certified copy of the order under appeal had not been filed. On November 3, she filed an application for condonation of the delay in filing the copy under Section 5 of the imitation Act. On November 6, she obtained a certified copy and on the same day she filed it in Court. On December 22, 1957, the High Court held that as the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order, the appeal was incompetent, and that there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the copy. Accordingly the High Court dismissed the appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The present appeal has been referred after obtaining special leave from this Court.

Court's reasoning:
4. The contention of Mr. Misra is that a decree is the formal expression of the adjudication and that where, is in this case, no formal decree is drawn up, the determination under Section 47 is a judgment and the Court having admitted the appeal must be presumed to have dispensed with the filing of the copy of the judgment. In this connection he drew our attention to Sections 2 (2), 33 and Order 20, Rules 1,4,6. We are unable to accept these contentions.We are not satisfied that the High Court dispensed with the filing of the copy of the order under Section 47. Admittedly, the High Court did not pass any express order to that effect. It may be that in a proper case such an order may be implied from the fact that the High court admitted the appeal after its attention was drawn to the defect. (See G. I. P. Railway Co. V. Radhakrissen Jaikissen AIR 1926 Nag 57). But in the present case the High Court was not aware of the defect and did not intend to dispense with the filing of the copy.We hold that the memorandum of appeal from the order dated January 20, 1967 should have been accompanied by a certified copy of the order and in the absence of the requisite copy the appeal was defective and incompetent.The record discloses that the appellant made repeated attempts to obtain a certified copy of the order. She is a pardanashin lady and her affairs were managed by her husband Ajit Prasad and sometimes by her son Virendra. On March 2, 1967 she applied for a certified copy of the order under appeal. The application distinctly stated that she wanted a copy of the order dated January 20, 1967, dismissing her objections. The application bore the serial number 17542. The copying department supplied to her a copy of another order passed by the Court on the same date dismissing Sumat Prasads objections to the appellants application for execution. The mistake is solely attributable to the negligence of the Copying department In her affidavit the appellant stated that the application for a copy dated February 17, 1967 was in respect of the order dismissing Sumat Prasad s objections. This statement is not correct but it may well be that having got a certified copy of the order dismissing Sumat Prasads objections she believed that she had applied for a copy of that order.9. On March 2,1967 the appellants son Virendra made another application for a certified copy of the order. He got the certified copy on March 10. In paragraph 6 of the petition for condonation of delay the appellant stated that Virendra did not give her the copy and this statement was corroborated by Virendra in his supporting affidavit. In paragraph 9 she stated that Virendra had misplaced the copy and due to fear of reprimand he did not inform her or her husband. Virendras affidavit is silent on this point. But the affidavits sufficiently establish that the appellant did not receive the certified copy from Virendra. Had she received the copy there is no reason why she would not have filed it along with the memorandum of appeal on March 17, 1967.10. On March 20, 1967, the appellant filed another urgent application for a certified copy of the order dated January 20, 1967 and also copies of two other orders dated February 17, 1967 and May 13, 1966. On this application bearing serial number 19461 the copying department made a note on March 23,1967, that the orders dated February 17, 1967 and May 13, 1966, were not found and the applicant should be asked to indicate the file whereon the orders were. It is surprising that the copying department should have asked the appellant to give this clarification. If the department found difficulty in finding the orders, it should have contacted theof the records who would have secured the orders for them. The note did not indicate why a copy of the order dated January 20, 1967, was not being supplied. The next note on the application dated March 27, indicates that the application was returned to the appellant. From the next note dated April 11, it appears that thecopying department, directed that the application be filed. We may safely presume that before April 11, the application wasby the appellant to the copying department. There is nothing to show that the clarification asked for was not supplied by the appellant. The department took no further action on the application and made no effort to supply the certified copies to the appellant. No ground was given by the department for not supplying a certified copy of the order dated January 20, 1967. The time for filing the appeal expired on April 20, 1967. On October 25, 1967, the respondents took the objection for the first time that the appeal was incompetent. Before that date, the record of the Executing Court including the Original order appealed from had been received by the High Court. On October 27, 1967, the appellant made another application for a certified copy and on November 6, 1967 as soon as she received the copy she filed it in Court. The appellant made repeated attempts to procure a certified copy.The failure of the copying department to supply the copy in spite of those applications contributed largely to the unfortunate delay in filing it. The appellant cannot be held responsible for the laches of the copying department.Once her son actually got the copy but she never received it. The appellant could have filed another copy before November 6, 1967, had it been supplied to her by the copying department. We are inclined to accept the statement that she was under the bona fide impression that the certified copy was not ready, and, that is why it was not supplied to her by the copying department.It is not a case where it is possible to impute to the appellant want of bona fides or such inaction or negligence as would deprive her of the protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. We are therefore inclined to allow her application under Section 5 and to condone the delay inthe appeal with a certified copy of the order.