Short Note : 1. In the trial Court a preliminary issue was framed whether the suit had abated for non-joinder of the legal representatives of Smt. Shyambai plaintiff No. 4? That issue was decided on 3.12.1968 against the plaintiffs and the same day the trial Court dismissed the suit as abated. No decree was drawn up by the trial Court the plaintiffs preferred a first appeal in the District Court within time on 15.1.1969 against the decision of the trial Court annexing a certified copy of the Judgment only since no decree had been drawn up by the trial Court. It appears that when the first appeal came up for bearing it was realised that a decree should have been drawn up by the trial Court and accordingly on 31.3.1971 the appellate Court directed the trial Court to draw up a decree. Then on 1.4.1971 the plaintiffs filed an application in the trial Court for drawing up the decree and another application for obtaining a certified copy thereof the decree was drawn up in the trial Court that very day but a certified copy of the same was delivered to the plaintiffs on 6.4.1971. On 7.4.1971 the plaintiffs filed two applications in their first appeal ill the Court for (1) taking on record the certified copy of the decree and (2) condonation of delay in filing certified copy of the decree. The first appellate Court on 1.10.1971 dismissed the plaintiff's appeal holding that the a peal was premature when filed on 15.1.1969 and it was time barred on 7.4.1971 when the certified copy of the decree had been filed. 2. The above narration of facts clearly shows that it was incumbent on the first appellate Court to decide the plaintiff's application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay which it has failed to do at least expressly. The above facts also indicate that the plaintiff alone cannot be blamed for this situation since the trial Court drew up a decree only on a direction being issued on 31.3.1971 by the first appellate Court to that effect. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that in case the application for obtaining a certified copy of the decree had been made by the plaintiffs even on the day previous to 1.4.1971 when it was made, the plaintiff would have been entitled to exclusion of the period. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that in case the application for obtaining a certified copy of the decree had been made by the plaintiffs even on the day previous to 1.4.1971 when it was made, the plaintiff would have been entitled to exclusion of the period. The question, however, is whether the effect of filing that application on 1.4.1971 itself and not the previous day is enough to penalize the plaintiffs by not even treating these facts as constituting a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal In the opinion of this Court this is a fit case in which section 5 of the Limitation Act should be applied and the delay condoned in tiling the first appeal in the Court below. The first appellate Court has not given any express finding on this question. The facts on which this point has to be decided are not disputed and are matters of record. It is, therefore, not necessary to send back the case to the first appellate Court merely for deciding the question of condonation of delay in filing the first appeal in that Court. The litigation between the parties has been going on since long and in the circumstances of the case there is no difficulty in concluding this point here only. This Court holds that there was sufficient cause to explain the delay in filing the certified copy of the decree in the Court below. Delay condoned. Appeal allowed.