ORDER : 1. This is a judgment-debtor's application for revising the decree passed by the District Judge, Bhind, on 14-10-1944. 2. The material facts leading to the decree in second appeal of the District Judge mentioned above are that the judgment-debtor's objection that the execution was barred by limitation was overruled by Judicial Officer Pargana, Lahore. The petitioner then went in first appeal before the Sub-Judge and his appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then came in second appeal before the District Judge but did not produce a copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal. He, of course, produced a copy of the judgment. When under orders of the Court he produced a copy of the decree the appeal had become time-barred, and therefore, on this ground, the appeal was dismissed, 3. In this revision the learned counsel for the applicant contends that an order determining any question referred to under S. 47, Civil P. C., (Gwalior S. 234) is a decree under S. 2, Civil P. C., and therefore when an appeal is preferred against such an order it is sufficient to attach to a memorandum of appeal a copy of the order, Mr. Abdul Hafiz places reliance on a Calcutta case reported in Khirode Sundari Debt v. Janendra Nath Pal, 6 C. W. N. 283. This case no doubt supports the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant; but in Qasimali Khan v. Mt. Bhagvanta Kuar, 40 all. 12: (A. I. R. (5) 1918 ALL. 394) it was held that even in an appeal against any order under S. 47 no valid appeal could be filed which was not accompanied by a copy of the formal order or decree. The Calcutta case was referred to but was definitely dissented from. 4. In Bodh Narain Mehto v. Mahabir Prasad, A. I. R. (27) 1940 Pat 176: (20 P. L. T. 801) the view taken by Agarwala J. was that in an appeal from an order under S. 47 the appellant was bound to file a copy of the order specially where a copy of the judgment is already on the record. This ruling is very brief and the question does not seem to have been considered in detail with reference to specific provisions contained in the Code. 5. This ruling is very brief and the question does not seem to have been considered in detail with reference to specific provisions contained in the Code. 5. In Mamgrey v. Sunder, A. I R. (27) 1940 Oudh 351: (15 Luck 669) the Division Bench lent support and followed the ruling of the Allahabad High Court Qasim Ali Khan v. Mt. Bhagwanta Kuar, A. I. R. (5) 1918 ALL. 394: (40 ALL, 12) and held that under O. 41, R. 1 it is imperative that a copy of the decree should accompany the memorandum of appeal. 6. In Surendra Narain Singh v. Lal Bhadur Singh, 56 ALL. 27: (A. i. R. (20) 1933 ALL. 762), the question relating to R. 2 of Chap. 3, Allahabad High Court Rules oame up for consideration. This rule lays down that no memorandum of appeal from an order shall be presented unless accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against, besides a copy of the judgment upon which such order is founded. The Division Bench held that the word "order" in this rule implies 'order' as defined in S. 2, sub-cl. 14, Civil P. C., i. e., formal order which is analogous to a decree. 7. In this case no formal order was prepared by the lower Court and an appeal was filed in the High Court and. a copy of the only order which existed on the record for the decision as well as the formal expression thereof, was filed with the memorandum of appeal. It was held that the appeal should be deemed to have been substantially complied with the requirements of R. 2, Chap. 3 of the High Court Rules; and such order should be taken to be both the judgment and the formal order. It was further held that the fact that a formal order was, by direction of the High Court, subsequently prepared by the lower Court and then a copy was obtained and filed by the appellant beyond the limit of limitation did not make the appeal time barred. 8. The following observation in this decision is rather important: "In general it will be found that the operative part of the judgment of the Court contains everything which the formal order, if it is drawn up, should contain, except the memorandum of costs. 8. The following observation in this decision is rather important: "In general it will be found that the operative part of the judgment of the Court contains everything which the formal order, if it is drawn up, should contain, except the memorandum of costs. It should, however, be observed that the memorandum of costs Incurred in the Court below is sometimes a necessary document for the purpose of appeal, as the decree or the formal order of this Court has to take account of the costs incurred in the first Court. But in the case of interlocutory orders, for which no separate and ascertainable costs are Incurred, a memorandum of costs cannot be prepared." 9. It was further added that where such memorandum of coats has not been prepared and the appellant filed with his memorandum of appeal a copy of the only order which existed on the record of the lower Court it should be deemed to have substantially complied with the requirements of law. Such order should be taken to be both 'judgment' and the 'formal order.' The concluding portion of the judgment which embodies the order may be treated as the order against which the appeal is prepared, and in such a contingency it would be sufficient for the appellant to attach to his memorandum of appeal a copy of the judgment alone. But where there is a judgment stating the grounds of decision and a separate order is also drawn up embodying the formal expression of the decision, copies of both the documents trust be attached to the memorandum. Johuran Bibi v. Howrah Jute Mills Co. Ltd., a. I. r. (35) 1948 Cal 134. 10. The Civil Rules and Orders of several High Courts do not contemplate the drawing up of a formal decree sheet except in cases where costs are awarded in disposing of objections under S. 47. And in such cases a copy of the order if filed with the appeal is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of law. 11. The definition of "decree" is given in S. 2, Civil P. C. wherein it is noted that a "decree shall be deemed to include the determination of a question under S. 47," and, in my opinion, this renders an order passed under S. 47 itself equivalent to the decree and hence eliminates the necessity for preparing a separate decree sheet. The definition of "decree" is given in S. 2, Civil P. C. wherein it is noted that a "decree shall be deemed to include the determination of a question under S. 47," and, in my opinion, this renders an order passed under S. 47 itself equivalent to the decree and hence eliminates the necessity for preparing a separate decree sheet. Therefore, in my judgment, an appeal filed from such order without any decree sheet should be taken to be correctly presented. 12. But the same consideration cannot apply to the presentation of second appeal which definitely attracts the operation of O. 41, R. 1, Civil P. C. (Gwalior sec 480) which lays down that the memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and of the judgment on which it is founded. It is not argued before me that the first appellate Court in this case had not prepared a decree sheet or that it is not the practice of preparing decree sheet by the first appellate Court in appeals against orders under S. 47. When it was prepared it ought to have been filed along with it, as, already stated, under O. 41, R. 1 it is imperative that a copy of the decree should accompany the memorandum of appeal. I have not been shown any ruling or any provision of law by virtue of which I can condone this deficiency in seconds appeal. 13. In the present case the copy of the decree was filed beyond limitation and the second appeal was clearly incompetent and was rightly dismissed. 14. This revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.