JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The maintainability of this appeal is questioned on grounds of incompetency and limitation. The facts so far as material for the purpose of deciding the points are as hereinafter stated. 2. The First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, dismissed Title Suit No. 48 of 1960 on November 27, 1962 filed by the Plaintiffs as deity and Marfatdar of the said deity against the Defendants for, inter alia, declaration that Plaintiff No. 2 is the Sevait Marfatdar of the deity Plaintiff No. 1 and that the suit property is the private endowment of Plaintiff No. 1. The defence to the suit was that the deity Plaintiff is not the private deity of the parties and that the properties are not the private debottar properties of the deity and that by virtue of Section 41 of the Orissa Religious Endowments Act the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the case for the present. The reasoning for which the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit as not maintainable in the civil Court for the present is that the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs could be granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and that after it is decided by the Assistant Endowment Commissioner, the civil Court will decide whether Plaintiff No. 2 is the Marfatdar of the deity, as to the character of the deity, and whether or not the properties belong to the deity. The learned Judge held that the remedies before the Endowment Commissioner are to be exhausted before coming to the civil Court. 3. On November 29, 1962 the decree was drawn up and notified. On December 3, 1962 the decree was sealed and signed. The Plaintiffs filed this appeal on January 3, 1963 without filing along with the memorandum of appeal a certified copy of the decree although it had already been drawn up and signed on December 3, 1962 as aforesaid. 4. On January 18, 1965 the Plaintiffs Appellants filed a petition for converting the miscellaneous appeal into a first appeal on the ground that the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge amounts to return of the plaint as it does not conclusively determine the rights of the parties and therefore not a final order. 5. 4. On January 18, 1965 the Plaintiffs Appellants filed a petition for converting the miscellaneous appeal into a first appeal on the ground that the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge amounts to return of the plaint as it does not conclusively determine the rights of the parties and therefore not a final order. 5. On February 13, 1965 the Plaintiffs filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay on the ground that the Plaintiffs filed the miscellaneous appeal on the advice of their counsel and that no objection was taken by the Stamp Reporter nor by the Respondents till at a late stage when the case was actually taken up for hearing; that there was a bona fide doubt as to whether a first appeal would be and accordingly there was a delay in converting the miscellaneous appeal into a first appeal. On the same date the Plaintiffs Appellants also filed an application for consequential amendment of the memorandum of appeal converting the same into a first appeal and also prayed that the requisite court-fee of Rs. 150/ - be accepted from the Plaintiffs Appellants. 6. It was not until February 13, 1965 that the Plaintiffs Appellants applied for certified copy of the decree which was drawn up as early as December 3, 1962. 7. It is on these facts that the Defendants Respondents submit that this miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable. We are of opinion that this appeal is incompetent because it is well settled that the requirement under Order 41, Rule 1 CPC that certified copy of the decree should be filed along with the memorandum of appeal is mandatory, and in the absence of the decree the filing of the appeal would be incomplete, defective and incompetent. If at the time when the appeal is referred a decree has already drawn up by the trial Court as in the present case and the Appellant has not applied for it in time it would be a clear case where the appeal would be incompetent and a penalty of dismissal would be justified Jagat Dhish Bhargava Vs. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others, . 8. As regards limitation, the Plaintiffs Appellants are not entitled to the exclusion of time requisite for obtaining copy of the decree u/s 12(2) of the Limitation Act. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others, . 8. As regards limitation, the Plaintiffs Appellants are not entitled to the exclusion of time requisite for obtaining copy of the decree u/s 12(2) of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court in the very same decision cited above has made it amply clear to the effect that where a decree is not drawn up immediately or soon after a judgment is pronounced and a litigant feeling aggrieved by the decision applies for the certified copy of the judgment and the decree before the decree is drawn up, as he has done all that he could and has made a proper application for obtaining the necessary copies, the time requisite for obtaining the necessary copies, the time requisite for obtaining the copies must, necessarily include not only the time taken for the actual supply of the certified copy of the decree but also for the drawing up of the decree itself; the time taken by the office or the Court in drawing up a decree after a litigant has applied for its certified copy on judgment being pronounced, would be treated as a part of the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the said decree. In the present case however the decree had already been drawn up one month before the miscellaneous appeal was filed in this Court without filing therewith a certified copy of the decree. Hence the Plaintiffs Appellants will not get the benefit of exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree. This miscellaneous appeal is therefore clearly barred by limitation. 9. In the view that we have taken that this miscellaneous appeal is incompetent and barred by limitation, the application filed by the Plaintiffs Appellants on January 18, 1965 for conversion of the miscellaneous appeal into first appeal and two other applications filed on February 13, 1965-one for condonation of delay and the other for consequential amendment of the memorandum of appeal-all must be dismissed. 10. In the result therefore the said applications and the miscellaneous appeal are all dismissed. In the circumstances of the case each party is to bear his own costs. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed