B.P.Sinha, J.

1. These two cases raise questions of first impression which do not ordinarily arise in these Cts. The questions which arise in both these eases are (1) whether Sec. 5, Limitation Act, can be applied to them, & (2) whether, if we decide that the provisions of Sec. 5, Limitation Act, are available to the applt. in the peculiar circumstances of these cases, the delay in filing the two appeals should be condoned.

2. The facts of the3e two eases are similar except in one respect that, whereas Misc. Appeal 80 of 1950 arises out of the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 40 of 1946 arising out of case No. 1 of 1943-44, Misc. Appeal 90 of 1950 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 1946 arising out of Case No. 1 of 1942-43. This difference has been sought to be made use of by the learned Cousel for the applt. as will presently, appear. The other facts of the case may be stated as common to both the cases as follows : Two appeals were filed on 21-3-1950 from two awards dated 13-12-1949, of the District Judge of Bhagalpur Under Rule 75A, Defence of India Rules, read with Sec.19, Defence of India Act. On 14-12-1949, the applt. made an appln. for a certified copy o