P.A. OOMMEN versus MORAN MAR BASELIUS MARTHOMA

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 17-07-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.A. OOMMEN 
v. 
MORAN MAR BASELIUS MARTHOMA 
JULY 17, 1992 
B 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.) 
Limitatior. Act, 1963 : 
S. I2-Exclusion of time taken in obtaining copy of judgment appealed 
c from-Applicability of Order XL! Rule I-Suit tried alongwith another 
suit-Common judgment dismissing the suits-Appeal-Time taken in obtain-
ing copy of judgmetit by plaintiffs in one suit-fVhether plaintiffs in the other 
suit entitled to claim the benefit for purposes of limitation. 
Code of Civil Procedure, I908 : 
D 
Order XL! Rule I-Object and applicability of-whether controls the 
provisions under the Limitation Act. 
The appellant and Respondents Nos. 6 and 9 filed a suit in the 
District Court. The suit was transferred to a Sub-Judge, who tried it along 
E 
with another suit filed by other plaintiffs. By a common judgment he 
dismissed the transferred suit as also the other suit. The plaintiffs in the 
other suit applied for a certified copy of the judgment and after obtaining 
the same filed an appeal before the High Court. The plaintiffs in the 
transferred rnit also applied for a certified copy of judgDlent, but the 
F 
application came to be dismissed for non-remittance of printing charges. 
However they obtained a copy of decree and filed an appeal before the High 
Caurt beyond the period of limitation. Copy of the judgment of the 
Sub-Judge with the seal of the Court was also filed. It was explained that 
they were under bona fide belief that the copy of the judgment obtained by 
G the plaintiffs in the other suit could be made use of and that it was not 
necessary for them to obtain the copies of judgment separately. It was 
pleaded that the time taken in obtaining certified copies of judgment by 
the plaintiffs in the other suit should also be excluded in the cas~ of the 
plaintiffs in the transferred suit. The High Court rejected the application 
and consequently did not accept the appeal. It was held that the plain-
H tiffs/appellants could not take advantage of the ·tertified copy of the 
548 
\ 'r' 
-
~ 
..--
,L 
P.A. OOMMEN v. MARTHOMA 
549 
judgment obtained by another person. Being aggrieved against the said A 
-( 
orders of the High Court, one of the plaintiffs/appellants preferred the 
present appeal by special leave. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that since the plaintiffs 
in the other suit have already filed a certified copy of the judgment, the 
B 
filing of the same by the plaintiffs in the transferred suit should have been 
dispensed with; that the proviso to Order XLI Rule 1 CPC clearly applied 
to the case; that a memorandum of appeal need not necessarily be accom-
...; 
panied by a certifed copy of the judgment obtained by the appellant 
himself; and that the copy of the common judgment obtained by the 
plaintiffs in the other suit could be used by the plaintiffs in the transferred c 
suit and in this view of the matter, the appeal filed was within time. 
-
The Respondents contended that the opposite party has neither filed 
any separate application for condonation of delay nor urged any ground 
) 
in support of their claim except stating that they bonafide believed they 
J. 
D 
could make use of the copy of common judgment obtained by the plaintiffs 
in the other suit. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1. The entire purpose of introducing the proviso to Order XLI E 
Rule 1 CPC, was to avoid extra expenses where more cases than one were 
-( 
disposed of by common judgment and the Appellate Court was authorised 
to dispense with the necessity of filing more than one copy of the Judgment. 
' 
It was no doubt made clear by adding the proviso to Order XLI Rule 1 
__,, -
CPC that the filing of the certified copies of the judgment could be 
dispensed with where two or more appeals are filed against the common F 
Judgment by the same appellant or by different appellants. It only deals 
.~ 
with the provision as to what documents should be accompanied along with 
the memorandum of appeal. The provision has no relevance nor can 
control the provisions of limitation which are contained separately under 
the Limitation Act, 1963. [554-E,F] 
G 
2. Admittedly the plaintiffs filed the memorandum of appeal in the 
~-
High Court against the Judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate 
Judge. The memorandum of appeal was accompanied by a certified copy 
of the decree as well as a printed copy of the common judgment. The 
appellant cannot claim any benefit of the proviso to Order

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.