JUDGMENT - DABHOLKAR N.V., J.:---By this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner/respondent in Regular Civil Appeal No. 42/2000 pending on the file of District Court, Aurangabad, takes an exception to the order dated 2-9-2000 passed by Extra Joint District Judge, Aurangabad, in the said matter. 2. On 25-11-1971, respondent filed Special Civil Suit No. 50/1971 for partition and separate possession against present petitioner. The suit was decided by judgment and order dated 24-12-1999. The trial Court held that most of the claim of the respondent was false, vexatious and also awarded compensatory costs. However, claim was decreed to some minor extent. 3. It appears that respondent presented appeal against the said judgment and decree, which is subsequently registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 42/2000 to the registry of District Court on 31-1-2000. At that time, the appeal memo was tendered without being accompanied by certified copy of decree under challenge. On 25-2-2000, petitioner, who had filed caveat before the District Court, received notice of lodging of the appeal, who appeared and took an exception to the tenability of the appeal on the ground that it was mandatory to present the appeal along with certified copy of decree as required by Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since the appeal was presented without certified copy of decree, the same was not competent and deserved the fate of dismissal. These contentions of revision petitioner are turned down by the Extra Joint District Judge, Aurangabad, vide order dated 2-9-2000. 4. Heard Advocates Shri R.R. Mantri and S.V. Gangapurwala for the respective parties. Even after arguments, both the lawyers agree about the legal position that an appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of decree, although the memorandum of appeal may not accompany the copy of judgment, if so dispensed, with the permission of the Appellate Court. 5. 4. Heard Advocates Shri R.R. Mantri and S.V. Gangapurwala for the respective parties. Even after arguments, both the lawyers agree about the legal position that an appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of decree, although the memorandum of appeal may not accompany the copy of judgment, if so dispensed, with the permission of the Appellate Court. 5. In order to contend that the appeal presented without certified copy of decree is incompetent and ought to have been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Advocate Shri Mantri has relied upon observations of the Apex Court in the case of (Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava)1, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 832 and more particularly the contents in paras 5 and 14, which read as follows: "The requirement that certified copy of the decree should be filed along with the memorandum of appeal is mandatory, and in the absence of the decree the filing of the appeal would be incomplete, defective and incompetent." In para 14, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "It would thus be clear that no hard and fast rule of general applicability can be laid down for dealing with appeals defectively filed under Order 41, Rule 1. Appropriate orders will have to be passed having regard to the circumstances of each case, but the most important step to take in cases of defective presentation of appeals is that they should be carefully scrutinised at the initial stage soon after they are filed and the appellant required to remedy the defects." Regarding further guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I shall come to those at a later stage. Contents in Order 41, Rule 1 by the phrase "The memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of decree appealed from........"lay down a mandate that memorandum of appeal must be presented along with a certified copy of decree and observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 5 further strengthen the notion that accompaniment of certified copy of a decree with the memorandum of appeal is mandatory. Yet the portion from para 14 of the reported judgment reproduced above, clearly indicates that presentation of the appeal memorandum without certified copy of decree challenged, does not entail dismissal at the threshold. Yet the portion from para 14 of the reported judgment reproduced above, clearly indicates that presentation of the appeal memorandum without certified copy of decree challenged, does not entail dismissal at the threshold. Such presentation is considered to be a defective presentation and as can be seen from further observations of the Apex Court, that registry is expected to make the appellant aware of defect in the presentation and invite to remedy the shortfalls. The appeal would continue to be defective, incomplete and hence incompetent, if the appellant is stubborn in removing the defects and, therefore, fails to remove those. Observations in para 14 reproduced above, clearly indicate that; presentation of defective/incomplete appeal i.e. without being accompanied by certified copy of decree by itself will not meet the fate of dismissal, unless appeal being called upon to remove the defects, as laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court, fails in removing those. Further observations of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court lay down guidelines to be followed in different circumstances, in giving an opportunity to the appellant to remove the defects in an appeal, presentation of which is incomplete, defective or incompetent. It is observed as follows: "(1) If at that time when the appeal is preferred; a decree has already been drawn up by the trial Court and the appellant has not applied for it in time, it would be a clear case where the appeal would be incompetent and a penalty of dismissal would be justified. (2) The position would, however, be substantially different if at the time when the appeal is presented before the Appellate Court, a decree in fact had no been drawn up by the trial Court, in such a case if an application has been made by the appellant for a certified copy of the decree, then all that can be said against the appeal preferred by him is that the appeal is premature since a decree has not been drawn up and it is the decree against which an appeal lies. In such a case, if the office of the High Court examines the appeal carefully and discovers the defects, the appeal may be returned to the appellant for presentation with the certified copy of the decree after it is obtained. In such a case, if the office of the High Court examines the appeal carefully and discovers the defects, the appeal may be returned to the appellant for presentation with the certified copy of the decree after it is obtained. (3) If the appeal has passed through the stage of admission through oversight of the office, then the only fair and rational course to adopt would be no adjourn the hearing of the appeal with a direction that appellant should produce the certified copy of decree as soon as it is supplied to him. In such a case, it would be open to the High Court and it would be its duty to direct the subordinate Court to draw up the decree forthwith without any delay. (4) On the other hand, if a decree has been drawn up and an application for its certified copy has been made by the appellant after the decree was drawn up, the office of the Appellate Court should return the appeal to the appellant as defective, and when the decree is filed by him, the question of limitation may be examined on the merits." (The observations are sub-paragraphed for the purpose of convenient reference) 6. On referring to certified copy of decree that is filed in the record of the Appellate Court, it can be seen that the decree was drawn by the Clerk on 24th day of December, 1999 and appears to have been signed by the Judge on 31-1-2000. Thus, for all practical purposes, the decree was drawn on 31-1-2000. In view of section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding exclusion of time in computing period of limitation and more particularly explanation below the same, any time taken by the Court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made, cannot be excluded. Therefore, in order to have benefit of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 12 of the Limitation Act regarding exclusion of time in computing limitation for filing the appeal, the party is required to present an application for certified copy of judgment and/or decree within period of limitation and it cannot take advantage of the lapse on the part of office to draw the decree. This is based on natural principle that the moment the judgment is pronounced, the losing party is aware that it is required to approach the appellate forum, if aggrieved by the decision. The limitation begins to run on the next day since pronouncement of judgment and once it begins to run it does not stop merely because office of the Court has not prepared a formal decree. 7. In the present case, on referring to application for certified copy (made available for ready reference from District Court, Aurangabad) it can be seen that application is presented on 27-12-1999 and office has registered it on 28-12-1999 because estimated cost was calculated on 27-12-1999, which was deposited by the applicant present respondent on 28-12-1999. Date 1-2-2000 was fixed for delivery of the copy. The copy was ready and accordingly delivered to the respondent on that day. The endorsement on the back side of this application regarding these various dates which are also on the half sheet annexed to the certified copy of the decree do contain an error. The date of presentation of application and completion of application by tendering the estimated cost is written as 18-12-1999 and although by this application, copy of judgment and decree both are prayed for, from the record of First Appeal No. 42/2000, copy of judgment seems to have been furnished in response to Application No. 5234/1994, whereas the copy of decree is supplied in response to this Application No. 5235/1994. According to Advocate Shri Mantri, these matters require investigation. I am unable to agree with this submission. There is nothing wrong in a party obtaining two copies of a judgment and only one copy of the decree. The date of application and completion of application 18-12-1999 written on the back side of the application as well as fly sheets annexed to the certified copy of decree is patently clerical error, because date of application 27-12-1999 is written on it without any scoring, overwriting etc. and the judgment of which copy was asked for was pronounced on 24-12-1999. In fact, limitation stopped to run on 27-12-1999 itself on presentation of application, although office has treated as application dated 28-12-1999. and the judgment of which copy was asked for was pronounced on 24-12-1999. In fact, limitation stopped to run on 27-12-1999 itself on presentation of application, although office has treated as application dated 28-12-1999. Suffice it to say that from the details that application was completed on 28-12-1999 and certified copy was delivered on 1-2-2000, appellant-present respondent would be entitled to exclusion of this much period i.e. 26 days from the period of limitation for presentation of appeal. 8. There is no dispute that impugned judgment was delivered on 24-12-1999. Excluding the day of delivery of judgment, considering the period of limitation 30 days and exclusion of 37 days from required for obtaining certified copy, (27-12-1999 to 1-2-2000 both days inclusive) appeal could have been presented without inviting objection regarding limitation on or before 29-2-2000. In the present matter, certified copy of decree was presented to the registry, admittedly, on 3-2-2000 and only, thereafter the Registrar registered the appeal and circulated it for orders before the Court. 9. The period taken by office to draw decree is insignificant in this matter as appellant had applied for certified copy on 27-12-1999. Therefore, the instant case is required to be considered in the light of observations of the Supreme Court as in sub-paragraph (4) above. Office of the Appellate Court, since the appeal was presented without certified copy of decree, should have returned the appeal to the appellant as defective presentation and asked him to present it with certified copy of decree. Since appellant has been able to present the certified copy of decree on 3-2-2000, it can be presumed, by taking a liberal approach, that had the appeal been returned by the office as incompetent, incomplete or defective presentation because it was not accompanied by certified copy of the decree, appellant could have presented it with certified copy of decree on 3-2-2000, when in fact he submitted the certified copy of decree. Had certified copy of decree not been supplemented to the incomplete, defective and incompetent presentation of memorandum till 29-2-2000, present revision petitioner would have been justified in praying that respondent/appellate before the Court should be thrown out from the Court at the threshold because the appeal which he had presented in a defective and incompetent form was not freed from defects and incompetence. Even considering the guideline, sub-paragraphed No. 1, since the appellant had applied for certified copy of decree and within period of limitation, the presentation cannot be said to be defective, incomplete and incompetent. As a precaution, appellant could have placed on record an application with the memorandum of appeal indicating that he had applied for a certified copy of decree within period of limitation and undertaking to produce the same as soon as available and before expiry of period of limitation. 10. The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, which are relied upon by the learned Counsel Shri Mantri, do not enable me to accept that the Hon'ble the Supreme Court desired to consider the incompetent, defective and incompetent appeal for dismissal, even if the appellant removes the defects within period of limitation permitted to him under the law. 11. Here in this matter, if at all, there was lapse on the part of District Court registry in not returning the papers to the appellant and retaining those with it, although the presentation was defective. However, this lapse on the part of office has not caused any prejudice to present revision petitioner nor given any benefit to the appellant. Although the appeal, as presented on 31-1-2000, was defective and incomplete, the defect was removed on 3-2-2000, which was within period of limitation. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court rightly turned down the exception raised by the respondent. 12. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference. The revision petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed. -----