JUDGMENT
G.D. Sharma, J.
1. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1996 passed in 1st Civil Appeal No. 21/93 by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Jammu against the judgment and decree dated 13-9-1993 of Munsiff, Sub-Registrar, Jammu. The appeal is not accompanying with a certified copy of the judgment and decree of the Sub-Regislrar, Munsiff. Jammu.
2. On January 28, 1997, the learned counsel for respondent No. I raised the objection that in view of the non-compliance of the mandates of Order 42, Rule 1, C.P.C. the appeal is not maintainable. The adjournment were sought by the opposite side to rebut this objection and finally on 25-6-1997 the arguments wore concluded.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in support of his arguments has cited the provisions of Order 42, Rule 1, C.P.C., which stales that “the rules of Order 41 shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from appellate decrees. The appellant shall, in addition to the copies of the decree and judgment appealed from, also file a copy of the judgment of the Court of first instance.” In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has cited the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575. He has also cited the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Sushil Kumar, AIR 1997 Delhi 104.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has controverted this argument by stating that the provisions of Order 42. Rule 1, C.P.C. are only of directory nature and not of mandatory nature. In support of his contention, he has cited the (sic) of Brojendra Lal Saha v. Jana Mondal, AIR 1947 Cal 67.
5. It may be staled here at the out-set that the law laid down by the Calcutta High Court in its Division Bench ruling AIR 1947 Cal 67 (supra) that in case the appeal was presented within time not accompanying the certified copies of the judgment and decree of the trial Court it was only a formal defect has undergone a sea change after the Apex Court in the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) (supra) held in the year 1969 that “Under Order 41, Rule 1 the appellate Court can dispense with the filing of the copy of the judgment but it has no power to dispense with the filing of the copy of the decree. A decree and a judgment arc public documents and under Section 77 of the Evidence Act only a certified copy may be produced in proof of their contents. The memorandum of appeal is not validly presented, unless it is accompanied by certified copies of the decree and the judgment”
6. Now, the question which requires consideration and determination is whether in case of second appeal filed under the provisions of Section 100, C.P.C. (the procedure whereof is governed by Order 42, Rule 1, C.P.C.) the filing of the decree-sheet is mandatory or directory? In Rule 1 of Order 42, C.P.C. the legislature has employed in clear terms that rules of Order 41 shall apply so far as may be to appeals from appellate decrees. The Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Sushil Kumar (AIR 1997 Delhi 104) (supra) had considered the maintainability of the second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C. wherein it was held that for an appeal to be registered as a proper appeal, it must be accompanied by certified copy of the judgment and decree. In that case certified copy of the decree against which the appeal was preferred had not been filed nor the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court had been placed on record till date. On these facts it was found that there was no appeal pending before it.
7. Further more, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Salindcr Kaur, v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1975 Punj and Har 194. has held that second appeal filed without copy of trial Court’s judgment was not appeal properly filed. On facts, the condonation of delay for filing copy of such decree was also refused.
8. In the instant case the appellant had placed on record the photo-copy of the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance, but till date has failed to place on record the certified copies thereof even though such objection was raised as back as on 28-1-1997.
9. The provisions of Order 41 and Order 42, Rule 1, C.P.C. arc to be read conjointly and not in contradistinction to each other. In other words, Order 41 supplements the import of law as intended in Order 42. Rule 1, C.P.C. The word ‘shall’ used in Rule 1 of Order 42, C.P.C. is of mandatory nature and by no stretch of reasoning it can be said that it conveys the intention of the legislature which is of directory nature.
10. In this view of the matter it can safely be
said that there is force in the argument of Un
learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
The result is that the appellant has failed to make
out a case for admission of the appeal which is
accordingly dismissed. The accompanying CMPs
also stand dismissed.