JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar dated March 3, 1990 by which he has dismissed the first appeal holding it to be time- barred. The facts of the case giving rise to this second appeal may be summarised thus. 2. Suit No. 40/87 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of the Munsiff, Ganganagar against the defendant-respondent for his ejectment on four grounds viz., denial of title, default in payment of rent, nuisance and material alterations. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit on all the grounds. After hearing the parties, the suit was decried on three grounds on 21.8.82 by the learned trial Court. An application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree was moved on September 13, 1982. The office fixed 20th September, 1982 for their delivery. The copies were not ready. On 23.9.82, notice was pasted on the notice-board intimating that the certified copies were ready Certified copies were delivered and obtained on September 27, 1982. The first appeal before the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar was filed on October 5, 1982. After hearing the parties, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar on the ground of limitation as said above. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar has seriously erred in entertaining the objection regarding limitation after eight years of the filing of the appeal during final arguments and in holding that the appeal was barred by five days. He further contends that the learned first appellate Court did not properly appreciate the provisions of Rules 234 and 235, General Rules (Civil), 1952 and also Mool Chand Soni v. Virender Kumar, 1981 W.L.N. 70 . He contends that no notice was issued on 20th September, 1982 - the day fixed for the delivery of the certified copies, and as such the period upto September 27, 1982 would duly be taken into consideration while calculating the time required for obtaining the copies within the meaning of Section 12, Limitation Act. Rule 235, General Rules (Civil), 1952 was not applicable as admittedly the certified copies were not ready on the date fixed i.e., September 20, 1982 and the main purpose of this rule was not reckon the period for destroying certified copies. 4. Rule 235, General Rules (Civil), 1952 was not applicable as admittedly the certified copies were not ready on the date fixed i.e., September 20, 1982 and the main purpose of this rule was not reckon the period for destroying certified copies. 4. The respondent himself appears and argues the appeal. In reply, he contends that the learned trial Court has rightly interpreted the provisions of Rules 234 and 235, General Rules (Civil), 1952 and has rightly relied upon Mool Chand v. Virendra Kumar, 1981 W.L.N. 70 . He further submits that there is no question of condonation of the delay under Section 5, Limitation Act as admittedly no application under Order 40 Rule 3-A, C.P.C. was moved alongwith the memo of appeal. He lastly submits that if this Court is allowing the appeal, the first appellate Court may be directed to dispose of it at an early date. 5. The substantial questions involved in this second appeal are those : (i) Whether the provisions of Rule 235, General Rules (Civil), 1952 were attracted when the certified copies were not ready on the date fixed (20-09-82) notified on the date on which the application for obtaining them was moved? (ii) Whether the day on which the application for obtaining the certificate copies was moved and the day on which the certified copies were delivered - both day - are to be excluded ? 6. Rules 234 and 235, General Rules (Civil) 1952 ran as under:- "234. - A definite date not ordinarily exceeding seven days ahead shall be fixed for the delivery of the copy and intimated to the applicant. The copy, as far as possible, shall be delivered on the date so fixed. If for any reason, the copy is not ready for delivery on the date so fixed, the applicant shall be directed to attend on another date, when the copy may be expected to be ready for delivery. If the copy is not ready and the applicant does not appear on the date fixed, noticed of the next date fixed for the delivery of copy shall be sent to him by post, if he has deposited the necessary postal charges. If necessary postal charges have not been deposited, it shall be affixed on the notice board of the court. 235. If necessary postal charges have not been deposited, it shall be affixed on the notice board of the court. 235. When a copy is ready, and the applicant or his authorised agent is present, the copy shall be given to him. If the applicant or his authorised agent is not present, a notice over the signature of the head of office shall be affixed to the notice board notifying that the copy is ready for delivery. If from the date of the fixing of the notice, the applicant appears within three months, the copy shall be delivered to him. If the applicant does not appear within this period, the copy shall be destroyed under the order of the Presiding Officer, an entry to that effect being made in the remarks column in the register of copying applications." It is not in dispute that the application for obtaining the certified copies was moved on September 13, 1982 and the same day September 20, 1982 was fixed for the delivery of the copies by the Head Copyist. It is also not in dispute that the certified copies were not ready on 20th September, 1982. From the usual endorsement made on these certified copies, it is clear that the certified copies were ready on September 23, 1982 and the same day notice was fixed for their delivery. This endorsement further shows that the copies were delivered on 27th September, 1982. Rule 234, as quoted above, provided that if for any reason a copy could not be delivered on the date fixed, the applicant shall be directed to attend on another date when the copy is expected to be ready. Its third para further required that if the copies were not ready and the applicant was not present on the date fixed for the delivery of the copy of notice of the next date fixed for the delivery of the copy shall be affixed on the notice-board of the Court. Rule 235 stated that if the applicant or his authorised agent was not present a notice was to be affixed on the notice-board notifying that the copies were ready for the delivery. This rule contemplated the issuance of notice in the case when the copies were ready on the date fixed for their delivery at the time the application was moved and the applicant or his authorised agent was not present. This rule contemplated the issuance of notice in the case when the copies were ready on the date fixed for their delivery at the time the application was moved and the applicant or his authorised agent was not present. Admittedly, the certified copies were not ready on 20.9.1982, and as such rule 235 was not attracted. Such a notice was necessary to enable the office to destroy the copies if the applicant failed to turn up within three months of the issuance of the notice. The copies could be destroyed only after the issuance of the notice and not without it. I find support in my view from the following observations made in Suresh Kumar Sharma v. Laxmanji Mahara, 1975 R.L.W. 161 page 162 para 6 :- "On the other hand Mr. Sunder Chand Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent, urged that a notice was affixed on the notice board on 23.1.69. This fact stands corroborated by the endorsement on the certified copies supplied to the defendant on 12.2.69. But there is no gainsaying the fact that this notice was under Rule 235 of the General Rules, (Civil), 1952. It runs to the following effect : "235. ...... (supra)" The purpose of giving notice under this rule is entirely different and it has nothing to do with the calculating of the number of days required in obtaining the copy. If a party does not appear on the date fixed to obtain the copy or in accordance with the notice given under Rule 234, the office is not supposed to keep the copy for all time to come. A notice then is required to be affixed to the notice-board notifying the fact that the copy is ready for delivery. The applicant can take the delivery of the copy within three months. If he does not do so, the copy shall be destroyed under the orders of the Presiding Officer, and an entry to that effect shall be made in the concerned register. The submission of Mr. Bhandari, therefore, does not help him and the learned lower appellant Court who has placed reliance on this fact, is not correct." 7. Much reliance has been placed on Mool Chand v. Virendra Kumar, 1981 W.L.N. 70 , by the respondent. The submission of Mr. Bhandari, therefore, does not help him and the learned lower appellant Court who has placed reliance on this fact, is not correct." 7. Much reliance has been placed on Mool Chand v. Virendra Kumar, 1981 W.L.N. 70 , by the respondent. In Para No. 4 it has been observed as follows:- "It has always been held that under Section 12 of the Limitation Act the exclusion of time would be for such period which was requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree or judgment, appealed from. The time "requisite" for obtaining a copy ordinarily commenced on the date when the copy applied for and extends upto the date when the copy is ready for delivery. But if the applicant has no knowledge about the date on which the copy was likely to become ready for delivery and no such date is fixed then the applicant may be allowed time upto the date of actual taking of delivery." It has further been observed that : "The crux of the matter is that the applicant must be made aware of the fact that the copy applied for would become ready by a particular date or that it has already become ready for delivery and till then the applicant is entitled to exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, as the time "requisite" for obtaining the certificate copy." The crux of the rules was that the applicant must be made aware of the fact that the copy applied for were ready and till then the applicant was entitled to the exclusion of the time under Section 12, Limitation Act as time spent in obtaining the certificate copies. The respondent is unable to say whether the defendant-applicant was aware that the certified copies were ready on 23rd September, 1982. It has been held in State of U.P. v. Maharaja Narain, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 960 , that Section 12(1), Limitation Act lays no obligation on the appellant to be prompt in his application for obtaining a certified copy of the order. It has further been observed that the plain reading of Section 12(2) shows that the computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on which the judgment or order impugned was pronounced and the time required for making available the copy applied for have to be excluded. 8. It has further been observed that the plain reading of Section 12(2) shows that the computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on which the judgment or order impugned was pronounced and the time required for making available the copy applied for have to be excluded. 8. It is not the case of the respondent that the appellant or his counsel was negligent in taking the certificate copies on September 27, 1982. In any view of the matter it cannot be said that the time from 23rd September to 27th September should not be excluded as the applicant was negligent. Such a time has to be excluded as observed in G.K. Das v. S.W. Biswas, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1290 . Thus the first question is answered in favour of the appellant. 9. As such the period from 13th September to 27th September (both days inclusive) has to be excluded as time required for obtaining the certificated copies within the meaning of Section 12(2), Limitation Act. The day of the judgment i.e., 21.8.82 has also to be excluded. The appeal was filed on 5th October, 1982, i.e. on the 46th day. The date of judgment i.e. 21.8.82 and the time requisite for obtaining the certified copies i.e., 15 days, are to be excluded. The second question is thus also answered in favour of the appellant. 10. Articles 152, Limitation Act provides for 30 days for such an appeal and the appeal was filed within 30 days. It was within limitation. 11. The suit was instituted in the year 1978. As such it is expedient in the interest of justice that the first appellate court may be directed to decide the appeal within six months of the receipt of the record. 12. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar are set aside. The first appeal filed is held to be within limitation. It is remanded to the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar to decide it on merits within six months of the receipt of the record. The parties will appear before him on 11th January, 1993. The records will be sent to the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Srigangangar forthwith. *******