(2). The Division Bench consisting of Honble Mr. Justice K.C. Agrawal, the then Chief Justice and Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur, again considered the relevant provisions of law and came to a conclusion that the decision holding these provisions of law as directory, was preferable to the decision holding the provisions to be mandatory. However, in view of the settled position of law of precedence, the matter was placed before a Full Bench, referring the following questions for opinion of the Full Bench : –

``1. Whether, in view of Rule 132 and 134, a time barred appeal when filed, must accompany along with memo of appeal, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 along with affidavit or condonation application can be filed later on, if so, what is the effect of the relevant rules?

2. Whether the provisions of O.41 Rule 3A C.P.C. is mandatory and the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the condonation of delay in filing afterwards?

(3). We have heard Mr. A.L. Chopra, Advocate, Mr. B.L. Purohit, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Kailash Joshi for the respondents.

(4). Undisputed facts necessary for answering the question referred for opinion are very few. In all these appeals, the appeals were presented prima- facie after the period of limitation for the presentation of the appeal had expired. At the time of presentation, the appeals were not accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act duly supported by an affidavit. The provisions of Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, as also Order 41 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, require filing of such an application along with the presentation of the appeal. Hence, these appeals were considered defective.

(5). When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court, he made an order on 17th February 92, noting an apparent conflict in two decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court, one a Reported decision in the State of Rajasthan vs. Vijay Singh (1), and the other an Unreported Decision in D.B. Special Appeal (Defect) No. 1125 of 1990- rendered on 1.4.91 in the case of State vs. Navratan. The learned Judge, having noted the difference, placed the matter before a Division Bench for appropriate orders. The matter was taken up by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then Chief Justice Mr. K.C. Agrawal. The Division Bench noted the conflict of decisions, considered the relevant provisions of law and came to a conclusion that the provisions were not mandatory in nature but in view of the fact that the conflicting decisions were rendered by a Division Bench of concurrent jurisdic-tion, placed the matter before a Full Bench for authoritative opinion. It was observed by the learned Judges in the referring order that the view that the provisions are not mandatory is preferable and adequate reasons have been given for indicating this preference. It is in this background that we have to consider the above referred two questions.

(6). An appeal is a judicial remedy provided by a statute for reconsideration of a decision rendered in a judicial remedy for redressal of a grievance. It is a safeguard against incorrect, improper, malafide or illegal decision in that remedy. Websters Third New International Dictionary defines an `appeal to mean a legal proceeding by which a case is brought from a lower to a higher court for rehearing. This very Dictionary defines `hearing to mean actively or carefully listening to a speaker. It means, opportunity to be heard or to present ones side of a case. An appeal,