Short Note : Appellants who are the sons of respondent No. 2 filed a suit for declaration of title and possession challenging inter alia the order passed by the Ceiling Officer in the proceedings under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. Respondent No.2 in the written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. However on behalf of the State an application purporting to be under Order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was filed in which besides other objections, an objection about the suit being barred by time was also raised. Thereafter the plaintiffs had even submitted an application for amending the plaint. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs under section 14 of the Limitation Act sought exclusion of the time during which the plaintiffs had been pursuing proceedings by way of appeals before the revenue Courts. By order dated 28-10-1967 the trial Judge rejected Judge rejected the plaintiffs' suit with costs as barred by time, it having been filed beyond the period of limitation provided under the M.P. Ceiling Agricultural Holdings Act. Aggrieved by that the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge by an order dated 1-5-1970 got this appeal registered on regular side. By the impugned order the memorandum of appeal was rejected as it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree. Held : It was admitted that against the order passed by the Civil Judge an appeal lies. Order 41, rule I of the Code requires that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the degree appealed from and (unless the appellate Court dispenses therewith) of the judgment on which it is founded. Thus the appellate Court can dispense with the filing of the copy of the judgment, but it has no power to dispense with the filing of the decree. 2. While admitting that the Court has no power to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the decree, what is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the decision of the trial Court rejecting the plaint in itself would be a decree and so a copy of the decree that was drawn was not required to be filed. As it is, even a certified copy of the order rejecting the plaint is not in the record of the appellate Court and so the argument that it would also be a copy of the decree and thus that would comply with the requirement of filing of a copy of the decree falls to the ground. Learned counsel for the appellant had to concede that if certified copy of that order also has not been filed in the lower appellate Court, the appeal before him would not, be a properly constituted one. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the decree that was drawn up should be taken to be redundant, and so according to him non-filing of its certified copy should not be of any consequence. I do not agree with this. As a matter of fact a decree has been drawn up embodying the formal expression of the decision and incorporating the other details as required by aforesaid rule 177 which otherwise would have been mentioned below the order rejecting the plaint. Even according to the practice laid down in Kamla Dasi' case (Supra) which has been approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi's case (Supra), where there is a judgment stating the grounds of the decision and a separate order is also drawn up embodying the formal expression of a decision, copies of both the documents must be attached to the memorandum of appeal. Applying that principle to the instant case it clearly flows that a certified copy of the decree as was drawn up by the trial Court should have been attached to the memorandum of appeal filed in the Court below. This in my opinion irrespective of the fact whether or not the certified copy of the order of the trial court rejecting the plaint had been filed along with the memorandum of appeal, it was necessary for the appellant to have filed a certified copy of the decree that was drawn up by the trial Court. The impugned order of the learned District Judge has, therefore, to be up-held. AIR 1969 SC 575 relied on. Appeal dismissed.