R.S. BACHAWAT, J.

(1) THE respondent Sumat Prashad filed an application for execution of a final decree in a partition suit. The appellant filed objections under Section 47 of the Code or Civil Proce- dure. By an order dated 20/01/1967. the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dismissed the objections. It is common case before us thatunder the relevant Civil Rules and Orders the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, was not required to draw up a formal expression or the decision under Section 47 as a decree. On 17/03/1987 the appellant filed an appeal against this order in the Delhi High court. Along with the memorandum of appeal she filed a plain copy of the order and an application praying that the append be entertained without a certified copy of the order. In the application she stated that she had applied tor a certified copy of the order but the same was not ready and that she would file the certified copy as soon as it would be ready and available to her. She added that she wanted urgent interim relief and would be seriously prejudiced if she waited for a certified copy. She also filed an application for stay of execution. On the same date a bench of the High court admitted the appeal, granted an interim stay and directed issue of notice to the respondents. The attention of the court was not drawn to the fact that a certified copy of the order had not been filed nor was the application for dispensing with the certified copy moved and an order obtained thereon. The appeal was registered as Execution First Appeal No. 86 of 1967. The appellant diligently prosecuted the appeal. On 25/10/1967 the respondents raised an objection that the appeal was incompetent as a certified copy of the order under appeal had not been filed. On November 3, she filed an application for condonation of the delay in filing the copy under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On November 6, she obtained a certified copy and on the same day she filed it in court. On 22/12/1957, the High court held that as the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order, the appeal was incompetent, and that there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the copy. Accordingly the High court dismissed the appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The present appeal has been referred alter obtaining special leave from this court.

(2) TWO questions arise in this appeal. First, was the appeal from the order disposing the objections under Section 47 incompetent in .new of the fact that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by certified copy of the order appealed from? Second, whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

(3) SECTION 2 (2) of the Code of the Civil Procedure defines "decree. Unless there is anything repuguant in the subject or context decree" means "the formal egression of an adjudication which so far as regards the court expressing it, 1969 SC 37 VII G-6 conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit arid may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include, the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Sec. 47 or Sec. 144. . . ." It is because the determina.tion of any question within Section 47 is a decree that the appellant could file an appeal from the order under Section 96 of the Code. Order 41, Rule I of the Code provides that every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader "and the memorandum shall be-accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and (unless the appellate court dispenses therewith) of the judgment on which it is founded". Under Order 41, Rule 1 the appellate court can dispense with the filing of the copy of the judgment but it has no power to dispense with the filing of the copy of the decree. A decree arid a judgment are public documents and under