Judgment 1. . This application has been filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants in First Appeal No. 571 of 1964, praying that the first appeal may be restored in the following circumstances. 2. The first appeal in question arose out of a final decree passed in a partition suit. The final judgment was given on the 6th June, 1964, and the final decree was signed on the 29th September, 1964, after it was drawn up. The appeal was filed in this Court on the 23rd December, 1964, with a certified copy of the decree, but without the certified copy of the final judgment. By order dated the 23rd December, 1964, time till the 15th January, 1965, was granted by a Bench of this Court to the appellants to file a certified copy of the judgment. The certified copy of judgment was filed on the 5th January, 1965. The original stamp report made on the memorandum of appeal in January, 1965, was that when the certified copy of the judgment was filed on the 5th January, 1965, the period of limitation for filing the appeal had run out. Therefore, the matter had been listed before the Registrar of this Court on the 3rd February, 1965, and fourteen days time was granted to file a petition under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. That order not having been complied with, the matter was listed before the Bench on the 24th February, 1965, and one weeks peremptory time was granted for the same matter. It appears that by non-compliance of the last peremptory order passed by a Bench of this Court the appeal was taken to have been dismissed as having been filed beyond the period of limitation. In these circumstances the prayer is for recalling the order dated the 24th February, 1965, on the ground that the limitation for filing the appeal had expired on the 18th January, 1965, and so the certified copy of the judgment had been filed within time. In the civil review application the stamp report was made in April, 1966, to the effect that in view of the decision of this Court in the State of Bihar V/s. Md. In the civil review application the stamp report was made in April, 1966, to the effect that in view of the decision of this Court in the State of Bihar V/s. Md. Ismail, AIB 1966 Pat 1, (Full Bench), the time for filing the appeal in question was up to the 18th January, 1965. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the appellants were entitled to the time taken for preparing the copy of the final decree, the limitation for filing the first appeal was up to the 18th January, 1965, and, therefore, by mistake, time had been asked for in February, 1965, in the first appeal for filing an application for condoning the delay. Reliance is placed on the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court for the purpose that the appellants were entitled to the time taken for preparing the certified copy of the final decree, which had been filed in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has argued that the matter is not covered by Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there cannot be said to be any mistake or error on the face of the record, because, all that had happened in the first appeal was that time for filing an application for condoning the delay was asked for and was granted and this application had not been filed. According to learned counsel, on a plain reading of Sec.12 of the new Limitation Act, the time for preparation of the final decree could not be taken into consideration and the first stamp report was right to the effect that the appeal was filed beyond time. According to learned counsel for the contesting opposite party, the decision of this Court in AIR 1966 Pat 1 (FB) is not relevant, inasmuch as, when the time was granted in February, 1965, on the footing that the limitation for filing of the first appeal had expired, this judgment had not come into existence. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the controversy arising in this case we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for granting a review. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the controversy arising in this case we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for granting a review. As indicated by the several orders passed on the order sheet of the first appeal, on the view expressed by the stamp reporter in January, 1965, no one had applied his mind as to whether the appeal had really been filed within limitation or beyond the period of limitation. Quite clearly counsel for the appellants in the first appeal accepted the view expressed by the stamp reporter in January, 1965, without considering the import of Sec.12 of the new Limitation Act and the Registrar and the Bench of this Court granted time for filing an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, merely at the request of the counsel for the appellants- It is now clear that the limitation for filing the appeal had not expired before the 18th January, 1965, and the counsel for the appellants had not applied his mind to the correct aspect of the matter and that the Registrar and the Bench had only granted time as time was asked for on behalf of the appellants. In our opinion, there was clearly a mistake apparent on the face of the record of the first appeal in question and at the appropriate stage it should have been held in the first appeal that it had been filed within the period of limitation. In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a good case for restoring the appeal on its original file from the stage at which it was pending on the 24th February, 1965. There will be no order for costs. 6. We may also refer to another point, which has been raised by learned counsel for the contesting opposite party to the effect that as the copy of the decree had been filed along with the first appeal, the time taken for filing the certified copy of the judgment should not have been taken into consideration, as the certified copy of the judgment had been applied for by the appellants on the 23rd December, 1964, and they had received the same on the same day. But this contention is not valid, if it be held that the limitation for filing the appeal had not expired till the 18th January, 1965. The certified copy of the judgment had been filed on the 5th January, 1965 and whether it had been obtained earlier or not is of no importance, if the time for filing the appeal itself was up to the 18th January, 1965.