JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1984 by the learned first appellate court upholding the judgment and order dated 24.4.1984 by the learned trial court in execution proceedings arising out of a decree u/s 209 of the UP & ZA & LR Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The suit was decreed by the Board in second appeal on 29.7.1975 and in the writ Petition filed against the decree, stay order was passed. The writ petition was dismissed on 30.9.1980. The decree was prepared on 24.11.1983 and the application for execution was tiled on 29.11.1983. The learned trial court found the execution time barred and dismissed the same. The learned first appellate court relying on 1978 RD 368 and 1984 RD 24 and 91 held that the application for copy of decree was given after long delay and the trial court was right in holding the execution time barred. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the limitation is one year for filing execution as provided in item no, 53 of Appendix III, that the decree was not ready on 23.11.1983 when the application was filed, that the copy of decree was issued on 24.11.1983 and execution was filed on 29.11.1983 that the period taken in preparing the decree has to be excluded in computation of limitation, that the decree was not prepared from 1975 to 1983 and this whole period cannot be counted while considering limitation and the learned counsel cited rulings reported in AIR 1963 Cal 104 and AIR 1976 SC 1089 in support of his contention that time, taken by office in preparing decree has to be excluded. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that these rulings apply for the time taken by office in preparing the decree and not for time elapsed before applying for copy of the decree, that the explanation to section 12 of the Limitation Act made it clear that the time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application was made for obtaining the copy of decree shall not be excluded, that thus only 1 day at the most could be excluded, that under order XX rule 7 CPC the date of decree has to be the date of judgment and limitation is one year from the date of decree as held in the ruling reported in 1984 RD 24 and that reminding act on the part of decree holder is necessary as held in AIR 1961 SC 832 . 6. There is no vagueness about rule 7 of Order XX CPC and this fact has been no doubt taken into account when providing for exclusion of certain periods from computation of limitation period. Otherwise, period taken in preparing decree would have no meaning. The explanation to section 18 of the Limitation Act is also specifically clear. It also appeals to mind that slackness of office in preparing decree when nobody wants copy of decree should not be deemed as period taken in preparing decree. Such period of preparation of decree must start from the date when some needy person commences waiting for the same. 7. There is no proof on record that after the dismissal of the writ petition on 30.9.1980, the decree holder wanted to have the decree executed. There is no proof that be knew that the decree was not ready, till he per chance enquired on 23.11.1983 according to arguments, though there is nothing on record to show that he did anything at all prior to 24.11.1983. 8. It was held in the ruling reported in AIR 1963 Cal 104 that certified copy of the decree is necessary for an application for execution. 8. It was held in the ruling reported in AIR 1963 Cal 104 that certified copy of the decree is necessary for an application for execution. In the ruling in AIR 1975 SC 1089 it was held that - "The time of requisite as used in section 12(2) means all the time counted from the date of pronouncement of judgment (the same being under order 20 rule 7 CPC the date of the decree) which would be properly required for getting the copy of the decree, including the time which must ex-necessitates elapse in the circumstances of the particular case before the decree is drawn up and signed. If any period of the delay in preparing the decree is attributable to the default or negligence of the appellant, the latter shall not be entitled to the exclusion of such period u/s 12 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1908." This ruling has implicitly affirmed the explanation following in section 12 itself. In the ruling in AIR 1961 SC 832 it was held that the time taken by the office or the court in drawing up a decree after a litigant has applied for its certified copy on judgment being pronounced would be treated as part of the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the said decree. It was also held that in case of courts failure to draw up decree, it was the duty of party to remind court. 9. The above rulings make it very clear that time taken in obtaining copy of the decree is to be excluded u/s 12 (2), that it will include any time taken by laxity of office after the application made for certified copy, the party would hot be penalised for the period it was vigilant but office caused the delay, but at the same time the party could not claim advantage of exclusion of the period in which all parties, office, officers, court, etc. were cent per cent inert. 10. In the instant case the appellant was cent per cent inert till 23.11.1983, without knowing if the decree had been prepared by the office or not, and the limitation period, even if counted after dismissal of the writ petition on 30.9.1980, was over on 30.9.1981 to 23.11.1983 was deliberate. were cent per cent inert. 10. In the instant case the appellant was cent per cent inert till 23.11.1983, without knowing if the decree had been prepared by the office or not, and the limitation period, even if counted after dismissal of the writ petition on 30.9.1980, was over on 30.9.1981 to 23.11.1983 was deliberate. Even if per chance the decree was ready on 23.11.1983 when the appellant applied for the copy, he would suffer the bar of limitation by about 2 years and 2 months. The position does not change just because the decree was prepared on 24.11.1983 and delivered same day. 11. Thus thrashed out, it becomes very clear that to gain advantage of any period u/s 12 (2) the appellant must establish that he was vigilant and actively pursuing the matter in the whole of that period claimed Naturally, his activity started on applying for the certified copy and can certainly claim exclusion of that one day spent in preparing the decree in the instant case. 12. In the result, I find this second appeal without force and the first appeal rightly dismissed by the learned first appellate court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs and the judgment dated 28 8.1984 and 24.4.1984 by courts below are confirmed.