The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the appellate Court cannot dispense with the filing of the copy of the decree, it has the discretion to enlarge the time for filing the certified copy of the decree, and the decision to grant time should be based on the circumstances of each case.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Respondents in A.S. No. 168 of 1999 on the file of the District Court at Tuticorin, (now transferred to Sub-Court, Tuticorin and Renumbered as A.S. No. 133 of 1999) are the revision petitioners :

2. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 686 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Tuticorin. Their suit was decreed as per decree and judgment dated 12-10-1999. Respondents herein without filing a copy of the certified decree, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Tuticorin, along with an application I.A. No. 405 of 1999, praying to dispense with the production of certified copy of the decree for the present. In the affidavit in support of that application, it was stated by the respondents that though they have applied for the certified copy of the decree emergently on 13-10-1999 itself, the same has not been issued and if they are to wait till certified copy of decree is obtained, their rights will be prejudiced and they may be permitted to file appeal without the copy of decree and they undertook to produce the same as and when it is prepared. The District Judge, as per order dated 15-10-1999, dispensed with the production of certified copy of decree and they were directed to produce certified copy of decree of the trial Court, for which 15 days time was given. It is against that order, this revision is filed.

3. I ordered notice of motion, when the matter came up for admission and the learned counsel for respondents also entered appearance.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The only question that is canvassed in this revision is, whether the lower Court was justified in entertaining an appeal without certified copy of the decree, when there is a statutory mandate. Counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision, reported in (Shakuntala Devi v. Kuntal Kumari) for the said purpose. As against the said contention, counsel for respondents submitted that the Court's power to dispense with the production of copy of the decree is not taken away, even though Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that, certified copy of the decree shall be accompanied with the memorandum of appeal.

6. Before considering merits of the above contention, it is better to extract Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus :

"Every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the Court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf. The memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and (unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith) of the judgment on which it is founded :

(Provided that where two or more suits have been tried together and a common judgment has been delivered therefor and two or more appeals are filed against any decree covered by that judgment, whether by the same appellant or by different appellants, the Appellate Court may dispense with the filing of more than one copy of the judgment).

While considering the law, we have also taken into consideration the facts of the case and how far the Court below has taken into consideration the interest of justice.

7. In Shankuntala Devi's case, in para 3 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus :

"3. Section 2(2) of the Code of the Civil Procedure defines" decree". Unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context" decree"means" the formal expression of an adjudication which so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Sec. 47 or Sec. 144. . . ."

It is because the determination of any question within Section 47 is a decree that the appellant could file an appeal from the Order under Section 96 of the Code. Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code provides that every