JUDGMENT 1. Both these revisions under section 115 read with 151 C.P.C. are directed against the order dated 16.9.92 passed by learned Addl.District Judge, Churu whereby he has affirmed the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu dated 20.2.92. 2. As both these revisions are directed against the common orders, they are being disposed of by the common order as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on 31.10.91 and also moved an application under 0. 39 R. 1 and 2 stating that he is B.A. Shiksha Shastri and applied for the post of IInd Grade teacher but no action was taken by the defendant, he, therefore, prayed that being a head of Antyoday Family he must be given priority and he possesses all the requisite qualification. The defendant-petitioner filed its reply on 13.2.92 stating that in merit the plaintiff was ranking below and, therefore, he could not be called for interview. The defendant-petitioner also stated that the order dated 17.9.79 issued by the State Government is not applicable for the appointment of teacher. The learned Magistrate ordered to appoint the plaintiff non-petitioner as grade teacher vide his order dated 20.2.92 till the decision of the suit. The defendant- petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 20.2.92 but the same was rejected as time barred. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the case law cited at the Bar. 5. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Addl. District Judge has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by it as time barred. It has been submitted that the petitioner applied on 21.2.92 for the certified copy of the order dated 20.2.92 and obtained the same on 26.2.92, which was sent for weightage. Again on 24.3.92 application for second certified copy was moved which was received on 25.3.92 and the appeal was filed on 26.3.92 but with the memo of appeal second certified copy of the order was annexed instead of first certified copy. Again on 24.3.92 application for second certified copy was moved which was received on 25.3.92 and the appeal was filed on 26.3.92 but with the memo of appeal second certified copy of the order was annexed instead of first certified copy. This mistake was brought to the notice and the petitioner moved an application to take first certified copy of the order on record which was produced on 30.4.92 but the same was rejected and, therefore, the appeal was also rejected treating to be time barred. 6. Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner obtained first certified copy within time but the same could not be filed with the memo of appeal. He has also submitted that even the learned Appellate Court could dispense with the decree/judgment under 0. 41 R. 1 Civil Procedure Code and, thus the appeal could be in time particularly when the court has power to condone the delay even if the appeal was time barred provided it satisfies the case of delay. He has further submitted that as per Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, the requisite time for obtaining 'copy' means certified copy obtained at first instance and, therefore, the learned Judge ought to have condoned the delay. He has placed reliance on Nirmala Choudhary v. Bisheshar Lal, AIR 1979 Delhi 26 , and the Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. Vs. M/s. Madanlal Dan & Sons, AIR 1977 SC 1892 . 7. In Nirmala Choudhary v. Bisheshar Lal (supra) it has been observed that the power to condone delay can be exercised if the appellant satisfied the court that the had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed. The court can be satisfied even from the affidavits or the documents on the record. It is also observed that it is not necessary in law that an application must be filed. 8. In the Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. v. M/s. Madanlal Dan & Sons (supra) it has been observed that copy supplied to dealer was lost-even then, time spent for obtaining copy of order to be excluded. 9. Admittedly had the appellant-petitioner filed first certified copy with the memo of appeal, the appeal was within time and it would not have been dismissed as time barred, and for that Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, counsel for the non-petitioner has no objection. 9. Admittedly had the appellant-petitioner filed first certified copy with the memo of appeal, the appeal was within time and it would not have been dismissed as time barred, and for that Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, counsel for the non-petitioner has no objection. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay particularly when the counsel for the non-petitioner has not been able to show what irreparable loss, the non-petitioner would suffer if the impugned order is quashed. In view of the aforesaid discussion and as agreed by Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, the case is remanded back to the learned A.D.J. to take first certified copy on record and decide the appeal on merits, and the impugned order dated 16.9.92 deserves to be set aside. 10. Accordingly both these revisions are allowed with the above observation. The impugned order dated 16.9.92 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Appellate Court to decided the appeal afresh according to law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on.........Revision allowed. *******