JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Court No. 6, dated 6th September, 1979. 2. One Achleshwar Nath (since deceased) filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent with regard to certain premises let out to defendant Dinesh Chand in the year 1969 at Rs. 150/- p.m. The eviction was sought on the ground of default in the payment of rent for more than six months and for reasonable and bonafide person necessity of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff Achleshwar Nath expired and thereafter Shri Brijendra Nath (son) and Smt. Raj Rani (widow) were substituted as plaintiffs in place of Achleshwar Nath. The suit was contested by the defendant on all the grounds. The trial Court after recording evidence of the parties decided the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit by judgment dated 13th April, 1978. The defendant aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal on 4th September, 1978, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 12th January, 1979, held that the defendant-appellant was entitled for condonation of delay and as such treated the appeal within limitation. Learned Additional District Judge thereafter heard the appeal on merits and by his judgment and decree dated 6th September, 1979, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances the plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. 3. On 22nd July, 1980, notice was given to the respondent as to why this appeal be not admitted. Meanwhile, the incharge copying section, District Court, Jaipur City, was directed to send the relevant register of copying application No. 1763 dated 26th April, 1978 of the defendant in Civil Suit No. 340 of 1975. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the documents except one diary kept by Ganesh Dutt Copying Clerk has been received. As regards the diary of Ganesh Dutt, learned District Judge, Jaipur City, by his letter dated 15th December, 1982, has reported that the said diary could not be traced inspite of many efforts made for searching the same. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the documents except one diary kept by Ganesh Dutt Copying Clerk has been received. As regards the diary of Ganesh Dutt, learned District Judge, Jaipur City, by his letter dated 15th December, 1982, has reported that the said diary could not be traced inspite of many efforts made for searching the same. It has also been reported that register No. 12 which used to be kept under the General Rules (Civil) 1952 has been weeded out in accordance with the order of High Court dated 4th May, 1970. As regards the application No. 1763 filed by the defendant it has been reported that the same has been tagged with the concerned file after preparation of the copy. 4. Shri R.C. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants vehemently contended that learned Additional District Judge committed a serious error of law in condoning the delay in filing the first appeal and no good cause was shown by the defendant appellant for allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Before considering the argument of Shri Kasliwal, it would be necessary to state the facts with regard to the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The trial Court passed the judgment and decree on 13th April, 1978. The defendant through his counsel filed an application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree on 26th April, 1978. The original application filed on 26th April, 1978, is available on record of the file of the trial Court. There is an endorsement of presentation of this application by Shri B.P. Gupta, Advocate and for calling the record and to issue the copy according to the Rules on 3rd May, 1978. It appears that on 3rd May, 1978, the concerned file had not come from the record and there is no order passed on 3rd May, 1978 for fixing another date. There is an endorsement on the back of this application dated 11th May, 1978 that a deficiency of Rs. 40 p. and 10 papers be got completed from the applicant. The defendant was not given any notice of this order regarding deficiency and it appears that the deficiency stamps were supplied on 27th June, 1978. Thereafter there is no mention on this application as to when the copies were ready. 40 p. and 10 papers be got completed from the applicant. The defendant was not given any notice of this order regarding deficiency and it appears that the deficiency stamps were supplied on 27th June, 1978. Thereafter there is no mention on this application as to when the copies were ready. The defendant has stated in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed before the lower appellate Court that he had been regularly approaching for the copies but the concerning clerk always informed him that the copies had not been prepared and then the petitioner came to know on 22nd August, 1978, from the Head clerk that the copies had been prepared. The defendant appellant in these circumstances submitted an application on the same day along with an affidavit to the officer concerned of the Copying Department and on inquiry the mistake of the clerk concerned was detected and ultimately the copy was issued to the petitioner on 1st Sept., 1978. As the petitioner was regularly informed from the copy department that his file and not come from the record concerned as such there was no necessity for him to see the notice board nor he was aware regarding any notice board. The petitioner in these circumstances was legally entitled for the period from 26th April, 1978 to 1st September, 1978 in obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In the alternative it was also prayed that there was sufficient reason for condonation of delay from 19th July, 1978 to 1 September 1978. It may be mentioned at this stage that 19th July, 1978, is the date which was notified on the notice board that certified copies were ready. The petitioner in the application further stated that on 2nd September, 1978 his counsel was out of station and 3rd September 1978 being Sunday, the appeal was filed on 4th September, 1978. The application was contested by the plaintiff. 5. Learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 12th January, 1979, held that the defendant-petitioner was regularly approaching the concerning clerk in the copy department till 2nd August 1978 and he was informed that his application has been sent to record section for preparation of the copy. The application was contested by the plaintiff. 5. Learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 12th January, 1979, held that the defendant-petitioner was regularly approaching the concerning clerk in the copy department till 2nd August 1978 and he was informed that his application has been sent to record section for preparation of the copy. On this date the matter was brought to the notice of the head clerk and thereafter it was revealed that copies had already been prepared on 16th July, 1978. Thereafter the officer concerned of the copying section demanded the following report from the head copyist :1. report in details;2. fix responsibility; and3. correct stage and corrective steps. 6. Learned Additional District Judge has further observed that in the report submitted by the head copyist on 23rd August, 1978 it has been mentioned that though in the register there was an entry of the copy being ready but the clerk Ganesh Dutt Sharma had told the defendant that his application has been sent to record section for preparation of copy after looking to the entries on the application only. It has also been mentioned in the report of the head copyist that the concerning clerk had requested that the mistake was unintentional and prayed for being forgiven. On this the officer concerned gave a warning to Ganesh Dutt for remaining careful in future. Learned Additional District Judge in these circumstances held that though it was also the duty of the defendant-appellant to have seen the notice board on 19th July, 1978 but it was not such a negligence so as to deprive him of his right to file the appeal. Learned Additional District Judge also held that after 3rd May, 1978, the concerning copying clerk had not fixed any date for issuing the copy and as such there was violation of Rule 234 of the General Rules (Civil). He also held that when the defendant had gone to the concerned clerk he was informed that copies were not ready then there is a reasonable explanation for not seeing the Notice Board. 7. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants contended that there is no explanation from the side of the defendant for delay in supplying the deficient stamps on 27th June, 1978, though it was pointed out by the concerning clerk as early as on 11th May, 1978. 7. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants contended that there is no explanation from the side of the defendant for delay in supplying the deficient stamps on 27th June, 1978, though it was pointed out by the concerning clerk as early as on 11th May, 1978. It has also been argued that there is no explanation for condoning the period from 19th July to 22nd August, 1978. Reliance is also placed on Mangi Lal v. Sita Ram, AIR 1957 Rajasthan 339 and Sita Ram v. Chameli Bai, AIR 1961 Madhya Pradesh 310. 8. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. B.P. Gupta that there was negligence on the part of the copying clerk which has been admitted by him and on the account he has been warned to remain careful in future. Though 3rd May, 1978 was given initially but thereafter no particular date was given for reporting about deficiency in stamps or for preparation of the copies. It was thus submitted that no litigant should be punished for the wrong committed by a clerk of the Court and a valuable right of filing an appeal should not be defeated. It was also argued by Mr. Gupta that condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a discretionary order and view taken by learned Additional District Judge is based on sound judicial principles and should not be interfered in appeal by this Court. 9. I have given my careful consideration to the argument advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Apart from a real and practical difficulty faced by a litigant these days in obtaining certified copies from lower Courts, it is clearly proved in this case that the defendant-respondent had applied for obtaining the copies on 26th April, 1978, 3rd May, 1978, was mentioned for calling the record and issuing the copies. It is clear from an endorsement on the back of this application dated 11th May, 1978 that till then no report has been made for deficiency in the stamps which were required to be paid by the applicant. It is clear from an endorsement on the back of this application dated 11th May, 1978 that till then no report has been made for deficiency in the stamps which were required to be paid by the applicant. It is also clear from a perusal of the original application that after 3rd May, 1978 no notice was given to the defendant respondent of any further date and if any report was made for deficiency in stamps on 11th May, 1978, it was not possible for the defendant respondent to know this date or to attend the copying department on 11th May, 1978. Thereafter the defendant supplied the deficient stamps on 27th June, 1978. Till this date the application was not dismissed on the ground of not supplying the deficient stamps. On the other hand, the application was kept pending and the deficient stamps were accepted by the office on 27th June, 1978 and as such there remains no negligence on the part of the defendant and he becomes entitled to condonation of delay without any question upto this date. I find support in this regard from a decision of this Court in Jitendra Singh and others v. Multanmal and others, ILR 1965(15) Raj. 1069. In the above case application for copies was submitted on 20th December, and copying clerk made a report on 23rd December that there was a deficiency of Rs. 2/3/- in the copying sheets filed. A notice was put up accordingly on the notice board under Rule 225(4) of the General Rules Civil calling upon the applicant to make up the deficiency with three days. The Court remained closed thereafter for the winter vacation from 25th December to 1st January. On 2nd January, when the Courts reopened, copy sheets were stated to be not available and the required sheets were filed on the 3rd. Copies were ready on 6th January and were delivered on the 7th. Under the above facts the whole time from 20th December, 1958 to 6th January 1959 was considered to be the requisite for obtaining copies on the grounds, firstly, that the time fixed for filing of additional copying folios had been extended by the Court as the copying application was not dismissed on 2nd January, 1959 and folios were received on 3rd. Secondly on the ground that in the endorsement made under the Rule 229 of the General Rules (Civil) 1952, the date of presentation of application for copying was mentioned as 20th December, 1958 and the date when copy was ready for delivery as 6th January, 1959. 10. In the case before me also an application dated 26th April, 1978 was not dismissed and deficient stamps were accepted on 27th June, 1978. 11. Now I shall consider the period subsequent to 27th June, 1978. It is proved on record beyond any manner of doubt that even after supplying the deficient stamps on 27th June, 1978, no fixed date was given for issuing the copies. Learned counsel for the appellants in this regard submits that copy was ready on 16th July, 1978 and 19th July, 1978 was fixed for issuing the copy and the same was also notified on the notice board, but I am satisfied with the explanation given by the defendant that he was approaching the concerned clerk regularly and till 22nd August, 1978 he was informed that copy was not ready till then. The defendant then took steps of complaining the matter to the higher authorities and also submitted a written application along with an affidavit on 22nd August, 1978, itself and thereafter the copies were issued to him on 1st September, 1978. During the course of inquiry also the clerk Ganesh Datt had accepted his fault and in these circumstances the learned Additional District Judge was quite justified in condoning the delay from 19th July, 1978 to 22nd August, 1978. There cannot be any dispute that if the defendant is allowed a period from 26th April 1978 to 1st September, 1978 in obtaining the certified copies then first appeal filed by him within limitation in Mangi Lal's case (supra) Dave, J., (as he then was) considered a case where the applicant was given 21st June, 1956 as the date for supplying the copy, the copy was not ready on that date and so it was not given to him. The copy was ready on 3rd July, 1956 but the applicant took its delivery on 7th July, 1956. The copy was ready on 3rd July, 1956 but the applicant took its delivery on 7th July, 1956. It was held that as no further date was fixed for the supply of copy on 21st June, 1956 and as the applicant had not deposited necessary postal charges, a notice should have been affixed under Rule 14 of Rajasthan General Rules (Criminal), 1952 corresponding to Rule 234 of the General Rules (Civil). If such a notice were fixed on the Notice Board of the Court then the applicant would not have been entitled to exclusion of time between 3rd July, 1956 and 7th July, 1956 but no such notice was affixed, he was certainly entitled to the exclusion of this period. In the above case the delay was condoned as no date was fixed for the supply of copy nor any notice was affixed under the Rules. His Lordship Dave J was not considering a case where any notice might have been affixed on the notice board of the Court and where the applicant may be deligent in finding out from the concerning copying clerk about the copies. The question of sufficient cause for condoning the delay under Section 5, thus dependents on the facts and circumstances of each case and the facts and circumstances of the case before Dave J. were entirely different and the above authority thus render no assistance to the appellant in the present case. 12. In Sitaram's case (supra), it was held that the word 'requisite' under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act meant something more than the word 'required'. It was further held that where an application for copy of judgment was made on 1st December, 1954 and according to the Rules of High Court the appellant was directed to deposit the remaining copying charges on 3rd December, 1954 but the appellant deposited those charges on 7th December, 1954 without showing any cause for the delay of 4 days, the appellant was not entitled to exclude 4 days as it could not be regarded as time requisite for obtaining copy of judgment within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. 13. 13. From a perusal of the above authority, according to the rules of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh the appellant was directed to deposit the remaining copying charges on 3rd December, 1954 and in these circumstances, if the appellant deposited the charges on 7th December, 1954 he was held not entitled to exclusion of 4 days. The above authority is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand before me. As already mentioned above after 3rd day, 1978, no date was given for supplying the deficient stamps or for issuing the copies. The application was kept pending and deficient stamps were accepted on 27th June, 1978. 14. The question of limitation was the main ground argued in this appeal by the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants in which I find no substance. As regard the question of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity it is a finding of fact which is binding in second appeal and no error of law much less any substantial question of law has been pointed out against the finding arrived at by the learned first appellate Court so as to call for interference in second appeal. 15. In the result I find no force in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******