Banerjee, J. - (1.) Ejectment suits 2044 and 2043 of 1960 were leave analogously by the Judge, IX Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, and were dismissed by one and the same judgment. Against the two decrees made in the, two suits, the appellants, preferred two first Appeals to this Court, or January 18, 1963, being F. A. T. 202 and 203 of 1963. The memorandum of appeal in F. A. T. 202 of 1963 was Wed accompanied by certified copies of both the judgment and the decree, as required under Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The memorandum of appeal in F. A. T. 203 of 1963, however, was filed accompained by the certified copy of the decree only.
(2.) The appellants should have applied for an order dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the judgment in F. A. T. 203, because their intention was to have F. A. T. 202 and F. A. T. 203 of 1963 heard together in this Court and, in that event the filing of a second certified copy of the judgment was wholly unnecessary. They did not, however, do so, at the time they filed, the appeals.
(3.) Now, under Order XL1 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure- "the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and (unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith) of the judgment on which it is founded. The consequence of filing a memorandum of Fiist Appeal, without a certified copy of the judgment and without obtaining an order from the Appellate Court dispensing with the filing thereof, is to be found in Chapter V Rule 10(2) of the Appellate Side Rules, which reads as follows: if a memorandum of appeal is presented for admission without copies of the judgment and decree or order appealed from, it shall forthwith be returned to the Advocate or party presenting it. If such copies are tiled after the period of limitation has expired the memorandum shall be presented direct to the Division Bench.";