Judgment N.K. MODY, J. ( 1. ) This appeal is filed-under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, against the award dated 16/07/2004, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Indore, in Land Acquisition Case No.34/03, wherein the award is under challenge on the ground that the amount awarded is on higher side and be reduced. ( 2. ) The appeal is filed on 20/06/2005. An application was filed by respondent No. 1 for dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appeal filed is barred by time, which is numbered as I.A. No. 10392/05. In consequence appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay, which is numbered as I.A. No. 10000/07. ( 3. ) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that award was passed on 16/07/2004, appellant applied for certified copy on 24/07/2004, which was ready on 18/08/2004 and was delivered to the appellant on 19/08/2004. It is submitted that thereafter, appellant came to know that the decree has not been framed by the learned Court below, hence an application was filed on 11/01/2005, which was allowed and consequently the decree was framed on 20/04/2005. Thereafter, the appellant applied for certified copy of the decree which was delivered to the appellant on 20/06/2005 and on the same day the appeal was filed by the appellant. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid factual position, there was no delay in filing the appeal. However learned counsel submits that as a matter of abandoned caution the application is filed, as the respondent No.1 is praying for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay. ( 4. ) Mr. V.K. Jain learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that it is not necessary for the reference Court to prepare a decree of the award. The award itself is a deemed decree under Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as under : Sec. 26 (2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of Section 2, clause (2) and Section 2, clause (9), respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). Learned counsel submits that while filing the appeal under Section 96 of the CPC no copy of decree is required to be filed by the appellant in view of the amendment on Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC vide amendment Act No.46/99 dated 01/07/2002. Learned counsel further submits that under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act where a decree or order is appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed, or where an application is made for leave to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment shall also be excluded and the word decree has been omitted by Act No-46/99. It is submitted that in the aforesaid position of law it cannot be said that the appeal is in time and the time spent by the appellant in getting the decree prepare and obtaining copy of the decree cannot be excluded. It is also submitted that no application has been filed by the appellant for exclusion of time. It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 has filed the appeal against the impugned award for enhancement of the amount of compensation on 27/10/2004, which is numbered as F.A.No.641/03. It is submitted that in consequence to that the present appeal has been filed. ( 5. ) In the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Raj Singh, reported in AIR 1996 SC, 2812, wherein the Honble Apex Court has held that in memorandum of appeal not accompanied by decree of Trial Court as such decree, was not prepared by trial court and the decree filed in High Court when it was supplied by Trial court, it was held that appeal deemed to have been filed after supply of decree by Trial court and Limitation starts to run from that date. There is no inconsistency between provision of Act and Order XLI of CPC as regards appeal under Section 54 of the Act. ( 6. ) The law laid down by the Honble Apex court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Raj Singh is arising out of an appeal which was filed prior to amendment in Limitation Act and also CPC, therefore, this Case is having no application. ( 7. ) From perusal of the record it is evident that award was passed on 16/07/2004 and the copy was delivered to the appellant on 19/08/2004. Raj Singh is arising out of an appeal which was filed prior to amendment in Limitation Act and also CPC, therefore, this Case is having no application. ( 7. ) From perusal of the record it is evident that award was passed on 16/07/2004 and the copy was delivered to the appellant on 19/08/2004. From 19/08/2004 to 10/01/2005 no action was taken by the appellant for moving an application for preparation of decree. It was also not necessary for the appellant to apply to the Court below for framing of decree, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no delay in filing the appeal. Appellant was not required to file the copy of the decree along with the appeal keeping in view Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 12(3) of the Indian Limitation Act. However, since the impugned award is also under challenge in the appeal filed by the respondent No.l and the appellant is yet to be served, who is also having a right to file cross-objections therefore, in the interest of justice the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to payment of Cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be payable to High Court Bar Association indore within a month. Heard on admission. ( 8. ) Appeal is admitted for final hearing. Since respondents are present, therefore, no fresh notice is required to be served. ( 9. ) Appellant is directed to supply copy of memo of appeal to the respondents. Let this appeal be listed along with F.A. Nos.641/04, 585/04 and 361/05. Both the applications stands disposed of. Application disposed of.