1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs. The appeal arose out of a suit under S.30 of the Land Acquisition act. The appeal of the appellants was dismissed by the court of appeal below on the ground of limitation only. There has been no decision on merit.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the court of appeal below erred in law in holding the appeal to be time barred. He further submitted that even if the appeal was barred by time it was incumbent upon the appellate court to afford an opportunity to the appellants to mend the matters to avoid miscarriage of justice, the circumstance being an explainable one. Mr. Thakur Prasad, on the other hand, submitted that the appeal filed was incompetent, as it was filed without a copy of the decree, which was drawn up earlier. He further contended that merely because the court granted time to file copy of the decree, that will not extend the period of limitation.

3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions few dates have to be stated.

4. On 5-5-1980 the trial court rendered the judgment and decree is said to have been drawn up on 15-5-1980. On 28-5-80 the appellants claimed to have applied for a copy of the jud