P.K.GOSWAMI, J.

(1) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High court dated 28/03/1977, in a regular first appeal. The High court dismissed the appeal as time-barred and also retused to condone the delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(2) THE defendant is the appellant before us. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for rendition of accounts in the court of the Commerical Sub-Judge, Delhi and he decreed the suit by his judgment dated 27/03/1976, in the following words:

I grant the plaintiff a final degree in the sum of Rs. 42,259-75 against the defendants with costs. The plaintiff is directed to make up deficiency in courtfee within one month.

It appears that the suit was filed with a court-fee of Rs.20.00 only. The plaintiff after obtaining, from the court, an extension of time supplied the deficient court-fees on 6/05/1976, on which date the decree was prepared and signed.

(3) ON 14/04/1976, the appellant, who stays in Ahmedabad, requested Shri bharatinder Singh, his Advocate in Delhi, in the trial court, to take necessary steps to file an appeal in the High court and the said Advocate made an application for certified copies of the judgment and the decree on 17/04/1976. Later on the appellant requested Shri P. H. Parekh, Advocate, to file the appeal in the High court. Shri Parekh was informed by Shri Bharatinder Singh that he had made the application for certified copies in April, 1976 and that he would handover the certified copies as soon as these were received.

(4) SINCE, however, for a long time the said certified copies were not received by him from Shri Bharatinder Singh, Shri Parekh filed another application for certified copies of the judgment and decree on 14/07/1976, after signing of the decree. The said copies were ready on 17/09/1976 and were received by Shri Parekh on that day. Shri Parekh prepared the Memo of appeal, got it approved from his client in Ahmedabad, purchased the court-tees payable on the Memorandum of appeal on 25/09/1976, and filed the appeal in the High court on 29/09/1976.

(5) IT is stated that Shri Parekh was all along of the opinion that since the first copy had been applied for in April, 1976 and since that was not ready, the appeal would be well within time and since the said certified copies would be obtained from Shri Bharatinder Singh, Shri Parekh would file the said certified copies to show that the appeal was within the period of limitation. It is further stated that Shri Parekh was also of the opinion that the time for limitation would start running from 6/05/1976, since that was the date when the respondent paid the deficient court-fees and the final decree was drawn up and signed. It was under these circumstances, it was claimed before the High court, that the appeal filed was within the period of limitation as prescribed by Article 116 (a) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

(6) THE Registry of the High court pointed out that the appeal was time barred and the appellant, therefore filed an application explaining all the aforesaid facts and circumstances with regard to the delay in presentation of the appeal and also contended that in fact there was no delay if the time ran from 6/05/1976.

(7) THE High court held that the appeal was, prima facie, time barred taking the date of the decree as 27/03/1976, which was the date of the judgment and refused to condone the delay of 12 days which, according to the High court, was not adequately explained. The High court, however, made a significant observation taking note of the entire circumstances of the case that "all this makes out sufficient cause for condoning the delay upto that time", that is 17/09/1976, when Shri Parekh took delivery of the certified copy. It may be mentioned here that Shri Bharatinder Singh took delivery of the certified copies on 22/12/1976, although these were ready for delivery on 11