JUDGMENT : SUNEET KUMAR, J. (Order on Preliminary Objection Application No. 5 of 2018) 1. Instant second appeal has been placed before this Bench upon nomination by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 15 November 2018. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, Sri Aditya Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 1/1 and 1/2. 3. Contesting respondents by the instant application have raised a preliminary objection and seek the following relief: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the relevant record of the copying section of District Court, Allahabad in respect of issuing of certified copy of judgment and decree dated 06.02.2018 passed in civil appeal no. 18 of 2010 (Radha Madhav Das & others vs. Smt. Shaila Agrawal & others) on the basis of the first ordinary application no. 73 dated 08.02.2018 filed in the copying section of the District Court Allahabad by Ratnesh Srivastava Advocate (counsel for the plaintiff/respondent in the court below) and also may kindly be pleased to pass an order holding the above noted second appeal filed as time barred or pass any order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. It is urged that the second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 4 February 2018 passed by the First Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 21, Fast Track Court, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2010 (Radha Madhav Das & others vs. Smt. Shaila Agrawal & others) was filed. From perusal of the certified copy of the judgment and decree, it appears that the copy of the decree was prepared on 23 May 2018 on an application dated 15 March 2018. The copy was received by the counsel of the appellant on 23 May 2018. 5. The second appeal was instituted on 5 July 2018, upon which the registry of this Court reported that the appeal is within limitation. The copy was received by the counsel of the appellant on 23 May 2018. 5. The second appeal was instituted on 5 July 2018, upon which the registry of this Court reported that the appeal is within limitation. It is, however, further urged that earlier an application was filed by the lawyer of the appellant on 8 February 2018, and obtained the copy of the judgment and decree on 16 March 2018, it is, therefore, contended that the time would run from the said date and the instant second appeal filed on the subsequent copy obtained by the appellant would be barred by limitation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has opposed the application by filing objections contending that the first certified copy was lost by the clerk of the counsel, thereafter, another copy of the judgment and order was applied, which has been filed along with the memo of appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting applicant/ respondents submits that the averments made in the affidavit are incorrect and false, it is urged that the first copy was issued on 16 March 2018, whereas, the application for the second copy was made earlier on 15 March 2018, therefore, the stand taken by the appellant that the first copy was misplaced is incorrect for the reason that the first copy was received subsequently to the application filed for the second certified copy. In this backdrop, it is urged that the second appeal is barred by limitation and the appellant cannot take advantage of the falsity stated and pleaded by him. 8. From the facts brought on record, it is admitted that two copies of the decree was applied by the appellant, there is no prohibition in law to apply multiple copies, first issued on 16 March 2018 handed over to the counsel's clerk was lost and the second copy, which was issued on 23 May 2018, has been filed along with memo of appeal. The office report certifies the appeal to be within limitation. 9. In nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent is that the appeal is barred by limitation if time computed on the basis of the first copy. 10. The point for consideration is whether obtaining of subsequent copies has any relevance in the matter of computing the period of limitation for appeal. 11. 9. In nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent is that the appeal is barred by limitation if time computed on the basis of the first copy. 10. The point for consideration is whether obtaining of subsequent copies has any relevance in the matter of computing the period of limitation for appeal. 11. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Maharaja Narain and others, AIR 1968 SC 960 ; ( 1968 (2) SCR 842 ), on similar facts was called upon to consider the question as to the true scope of the expression "time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from" found in sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, The Act. The Court in paragraph 7 held as follows: "If the appellate courts are required to find out in every appeal filed before them the minimum time required for obtaining a copy of the order appealed from, it would be unworkable. In that event every time an appeal is filed, the court not only will have to see whether the appeal is in time on the basis of the information available from the copy of the order filed along with the memorandum of appeal but it must go further and hold an enquiry whether any other copy had been made available to the appellant and if so what was the time taken by the court to make available that copy. This would lead to a great deal of confusion and enquiries into the alleged laches or dilatoriness in respect not of copies produced with the memorandum of appeal but about other copies which he might have got and used for other purposes with which the court has nothing to do." 12. The Court was of the view that though the appellant could have, if it chose to take the risk waited till ninety days period, allowed to it by the statute, was almost exhausted. Even then the time required for obtaining a copy of the order could have been deducted in calculating the period of limitation of filing the appeal. Hence, the expression "time requisite" cannot be understood as the time absolutely necessary for obtaining the copy of the order. 13. Even then the time required for obtaining a copy of the order could have been deducted in calculating the period of limitation of filing the appeal. Hence, the expression "time requisite" cannot be understood as the time absolutely necessary for obtaining the copy of the order. 13. Section 12(2) of the Act enlarges the period of limitation prescribed under Entry 157 of Schedule (1), that section permits the appellant to deduct from the time taken for filing the appeal, the time required for obtaining the copy of the order appealed from and not any lessor period which might have been occupied if the application for copy had been filed on some other date. A plain reading of sub-section (2) shows that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on which the judgment or order complained of was pronounced and the time taken by the court to make available the copy applied for, has to be excluded. There is no justification for restricting the scope of that provision. In other words the Court is required to see whether the appeal is in time on the basis of the information available from the certified copy of the order filed along with the memo of appeal. The Court is not required or mandated to make any further enquiry whether any other copy or copies were made available to the appellant and if so the time taken to make available that copy. The computation of limitation is to be confined to the copy produced with the appeal and no further enquiry is required to be made by the Court. 14. In rebuttal learned counsel for the applicant/respondent has placed reliance on decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Jain Spinners vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1998 (1) SCC 502 and of this Court in Mahabir vs. 4th Additional District Judge, Fatehpur, AIR (All) 1982 (8). 15. The decision relied upon are of no relevance and does not help the applicant/respondents. Maharaja Narain (supra) rendered by a larger bench has not been noticed, further, no reasoning has been assigned for the conclusion drawn therein. The decisions at the best would bind the parties but does not lay down the law. 16. 15. The decision relied upon are of no relevance and does not help the applicant/respondents. Maharaja Narain (supra) rendered by a larger bench has not been noticed, further, no reasoning has been assigned for the conclusion drawn therein. The decisions at the best would bind the parties but does not lay down the law. 16. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent on specific query does not dispute that the ratio rendered in Maharaja Narain (supra) is on the point which is involved in the facts of the case and would bind this Court. 17. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement of law referred to herein above, the application raising preliminary objection being devoid of merit is, accordingly, rejected. 18. The application is dismissed. (Order on Section 5 Application) As prayed, Section 5 application is dismissed as not pressed. (Order on Appeal) On joint request of the parties, put up this appeal for admission on 6 December 2018, in the additional cause list.