In Re: P.C. Venkataswami

Subba Rao, J.—These two applications are filed for review of a judgment and decree in A. S. No. 351 of 1945 and A. S. No. 78 of 1946.

The judgment was delivered on 12-4-1949. These applications were filed on 11-7-1949, i.e., on the 90th day from the date of judgment. The

relevant articles of the Court-fees Act read thus :

Art. 4 : Application for review of judgment, if The fee leviable on the plaint or

presented on or after the ninetieth day from the memorandum of appeal

date of the decree.

Art. 5 : Application for review of judgment, if One half of the fee leviable on the

presented before the ninetieth day from the data of plaint or memorandum of appeal.

the decree

As the 89th day happened to be a Sunday, and therefore a holiday, the petitioner contended that Article 5 applied, and that, he need only pay

one half of the fee leviable on the memorandum of appeal. The Master rejected that contention relying upon the decision in In re Kota, 9 Mad.

The learned Judge in that case held that in computing the period of 89 days from the date of decree, within which an application for review of

judgment may be presented on payment of half the fee payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal, the time during which the Court is closed

for vacation cannot be excluded. This decision was given in the year 1885, and it has stood the test of time, and though the learned counsel

contended that the judgment is not sound, we are not inclined to take a different view. Even so, it is argued that the applicant should be given a

certificate authorising him to receive back from the Collector so much of the fees paid on the application as exceeds the fee which would be

payable had at been presented before such date under the provisions of Section 14, Court-fees Acts. Under that section, ""where an application for

a review of judgment is presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree, the Court, unless the delay was caused by the

applicant''s laches, may, in its discretion, grant him a certificate ""like the one required."" The only question, therefore, is whether the applicant can be

said, in the circumstances of the case, to be guilty of lacbea, If the 89th day, happened to be in working day, the applicant would have paid half the

court-fee and Schedule I Article 5 would have applied. But, unfortunately, at that day happened to be a holiday, he was not able to comply with

the provisions of Article 5. The default is not because of his laches but because of an accident, namely, the last day happening to be a holiday.

We, therefore, hold that the petitioner is not guilty of any laches, and we direct a certificate to be issued in the manner prescribed u/s 14, Court-

fees Act, in both the review applications.