Certified copy requirement for appeals against Section 47 decrees, with delay condonable on sufficient cause and bona fide conduct.

A decision under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure operates as a decree, so an appeal against it must be accompanied by a certified copy under Order 41 Rule 1; the appellate court cannot waive that requirement, and the appeal is defective without the copy. Delay in filing the certified copy and re-filing may still be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act where sufficient cause is shown, particularly if the delay is not due to negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides. On the stated facts, repeated attempts to obtain the copy and administrative errors justified condonation, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal from an order deciding objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was incompetent because the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed from; (ii) whether the delay in filing the certified copy and re-filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal from an order deciding objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was incompetent because the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed from.

Analysis: A determination of a question under Section 47 is deemed to be a decree within Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Order 41 Rule 1, a memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from, and the appellate court has no power to dispense with that requirement. Where no separate formal decree is drawn up in such a matter, the decision itself operates as the decree and must still be filed in certified form. The absence of a certified copy therefore renders the appeal defective and incompetent.

Conclusion: The appeal was incompetent in the absence of a certified copy of the order under Section 47.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing the certified copy and re-filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: Section 5 confers a discretionary power to condone delay where sufficient cause is shown, and the expression must receive a liberal construction when there is no negligence, inaction, or want of bona fides. The record showed repeated attempts to obtain the certified copy, mistakes and omissions attributable to the copying department, and a bona fide belief that the copy had not been supplied. On those facts, the appellant was not responsible for the delay and the requirements of sufficient cause were satisfied.

Conclusion: The delay was condonable and the application under Section 5 was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's dismissal was set aside, and the matter was sent back for decision on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a decision under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure functions as a decree, a certified copy of that decision must accompany the appeal; however, delay in filing the copy may be condoned if sufficient cause is established and the delay is not attributable to negligence or lack of bona fides.

---