Judgment :- 1. The appeal before the lower appellate court was filed with a petition to excuse delay. The petition to excuse delay was dismissed and the order is the subject matter of the revision petition. In consequence of the refusal to excuse the delay the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it is barred. The second appeal is directed against the decision of the lower appellate court. 2. Counsel for the revision petitioners and the appellants contended that in view of Explanation to S.12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 there is no delay in filing the appeal. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to state some facts. The appeal was filed in the lower appellate court against the final judgment and decree in a suit for partition. The judgment was pronounced on 6 61966 and the appeal before the lower appellate court was filed on 15121966. The application for copy of the judgment and decree was made on 26-11-1966. On the date of the filing of this application the time for filing the appeal has expired. Along with the appeal the appellants bad filed a petition to accept the appeal without a copy of the decree. In Para.5 therein they had stated that on the application for copy of the decree filed in the trial court it has been noted that the decree has not been prepared. This shows that on the date when the application was filed on 26-11-1966 for copies of the judgment and decree, the decree had not been prepared. Counsel for the appellant contended that in computing the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree for the purpose of production in the lower appellate court he is entitled to exclude the period from 6 61966 to 26 111966 In calculating the period for limitation. This aspect was not considered by the learned appellate Judge. The position canvassed for by the appellants' counsel is very vehemently contested by counsel for the respondents. 3. The decisions of this court in S. A. 974, 975 and 976 of 1970 and C.M. P. 14506 of 1970 in A. S.145 of 1964 support the appellants' contention. The relevant provisions of the Limitation Act are S.12 (2) and the Explanation to that Section. 3. The decisions of this court in S. A. 974, 975 and 976 of 1970 and C.M. P. 14506 of 1970 in A. S.145 of 1964 support the appellants' contention. The relevant provisions of the Limitation Act are S.12 (2) and the Explanation to that Section. Those provisions read: "In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded. Explanation.- In computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded". To me, it appears there is no difficulty to answer the point raised in favour of the appellants because of the Explanation. The explanation prescribes the method of calculating the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree. According to that Explanation, the period taken by a court to prepare the decree even before an application for a copy is made shall not be excluded in finding out we requisite time for obtaining a copy of the decree. That means the requisite time contemplated by the Explanation must also take in the time taken by a court to prepare the decree even though an application for a copy has not been made. I, therefore, set aside the order and the decree of the court below. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I hold that there is no delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate court. The second appeal is allowed and the learned appellate judge is directed to take back the appeal to his file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The court fee paid for the appeal will be refunded to appellants' counsel. I do not find anything in the decision of AIR. 1966 SC. 38 (Partha Sarathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) against the view that I am taking. A. N. K.Allowed.