Short Note : In the present appeal the only point for consideration is whether the first appeal filed before the lower appellate Court by the plaintiff was within time or not. The said Court rejected that appeal as barred by time. Held : The civil suit was decided on 16-9-1969. The appellant applied for a certified copy of the judgment and decree through her counsel Shri J.P. Upadhaya (AW 2) on 27-9-1969. He was noticed to appear on a number of dates but as it appears nothing happened with reference to the preparation of the copies. The relevant date given was 3-3-1970. According to the record, Shri Upadhyay had appeared on that date. The controversy arises at this stage. According to the defendants-respondents Shri Upadhaya was told orally for supply of further funds to enable the progress of the copy applied for, which he did on 28-3-1970. According to Shri Upadhyay (AW 2) he was never told orally on 3-3-1970 and it was only on 28-3-1970 that Dayachand Agarwal. Head Copyist (AW 1) informed him to make good the deficiency which was of Rs. 220 and that was then and there made up. Thereafter, the copy was got ready on 30-3-1970 but the date of next appearance was given 3-4-1970. Shri Upadhayay (AW 2) appeared on 21-4-1970 and got the copy. The whole question in this appeal is whether Shri Upadhyay (AW 2) was told orally on 3-3-1970 by D.C. Agarwal, Head Copyist (AW 1) to make good the deficiency. In this connection, the evidence of D.C. Agarwal, Head Copyist (AW 1) is that he had orally told Shri Upadhaya (AW 2) about the deficiency on 3-3-1970. But when his attention was invited to the record, he admitted that the endorsement does not relate to the oral information to the counsel but the entry is with regard to sending a service post card. Thus, he contradicted himself materially and was unable to explain this variance. He also admitted in his evidence that he knew the rule about making entries and when Shri Upadhayay was informed orally then the entry could not have been as was done. Shri Upadhayay (AW 2) in his evidence has clearly stated that it was only on 28-3-1970 that he was told about the deficiency. He also admitted in his evidence that he knew the rule about making entries and when Shri Upadhayay was informed orally then the entry could not have been as was done. Shri Upadhayay (AW 2) in his evidence has clearly stated that it was only on 28-3-1970 that he was told about the deficiency. When he was asked about his appearance on 3-3-1970 he deposed that he was unable to make any positive statement in that regard. This statement of Shri Upadhyay has been construed against him and the evidence of the Head Copyist has been believed by the lower appellate Court that he had orally informed Shri Upadhyay. I am unable to agree with this appreciation of the evidence on record. I find it difficult to believe the testimony of D.C. Agarwal, Head Copyist (AW1) when he contradicted himself from the documentary endorsement made by him. I really fail to understand the method of the working of this officer of the lower Court by making incorrect endorsements on official records which cannot be lightly taken. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification in disbelieving a lawyer of the Court when he clearly stated that he was never told in writing or orally to make good the deficiency before 28-3-1970 and I believe his statement in that regard. Appeal allowed.