T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

The appellants herein were defendants in O.S.No.4/1978 on the file of the Additional District Court, Thrissur. The suit was one for injunction restraining the defendants from passing off the Ayurvedic medical preparations of the defendants as those of the plaintiff, and for consequential reliefs.

2. The Additional District Judge found that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree and accordingly decreed the suit. The appellants herein filed A.S. No.17/1988 before this court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, on the ground of non production of the decree alone and not on the merits of the matter. The said judgment is assailed in this appeal. The appeal was dismissed as time barred by the learned Single Judge on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the appellants have not produced copy of the decree along with the appeal.

3. The suit was one arising under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The decree was passed by the Additional District Judge on 9.12.1987. Appeal A.S.No.17/1988 was filed by the appellants on 12.1.1988. This was done without producing a printed copy of the judgment and with a copy of the last paragraph of the judgment, evidently issued as per R.6-A of O.XX of the Code of Civil Procedure. Along with the appeal, it is also seen that the appellants filed C.M.P. No.1087/1988 requesting for two months time for production of the printed copy of the judgment. This request was granted by this Court on 13.1.1988. It is also to be seen that this Court in C.M.P.No.1088/1988 had granted an interim order of stay of operation of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Finally, the appellants filed C.M.P. No.4008/1997 to dispense with the production of the printed copy of judgment and filed another petition as C.M.P. No.4316/1997 to enlarge the time for production of the decree by invoking Ss.148 & 151 of the C.P.C. A copy of the decree was also produced on 13.8.1997. This is the factual matrix arising from the dispute involved in this appeal.

4. The learned single Judge considered the question whether time could be granted to produce the printed copy of the judgment while considering the prayer of the appellants made in C.M.P. No.4008/1997. It was found, on a reading of R.258(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, that as the judgment exceeds 700 words, it was bound to be printed. C.M.P.No.4008/97 to dispense with its production was not allowed as it is belated. It is also noted in paragraph 5 of the judgment that the District Court had informed this Court that the judgment had not been printed and no steps were taken for getting it printed also, which is evidenced by letter dated 3.9.1997 of the District Judge.

5. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to consider the question whether the appeal which was filed without production of the copy of the decree is maintainable. It was found that once the decree is drawn, the last paragraph of the judgment drawn under R.6-A will cease to be a decree for the purpose of execution or for any other purpose. It was then considered whether the application filed under R.148 for enlargement of time could be allowed or not. Ultimately it was held that there is gross delay in producing the decree, that by the time it was produced the appeal was time barred and therefore the appeal is not maintainable.

6. Mr. M.C. Sen, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the appellants, contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appeal is not maintainable, is not correct and at any rate, by exercise of power under S.148, time for production of the decree could have been extended and could not have been dismissed on a technical plea rather than on the merits. It was further submitted that even though the time granted for production of printed copy of judgment was over, nothing prevents the Court from extending the period or dispensing with its production as prayed for. He invited our attention to the decisions of the