Plaintiffs, David Davidge and T. H. Davidge, instituted a possessory action against defendant, Phillip Magliola, claiming possession of certain immovable property located in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. Defendant filed an exception of ten years acquisitive prescription thereby asserting title in himself and converting the suit into a petitory action. On December 30, 1975, judgment was rendered irnfavor of defendant sustaining his exception of prescription and declaring him owner of the property in question. On plaintiffs’ petition, an order of suspensive appeal was granted on January 23, 1976. The order set the return day of the appeal at March 24, 1976 and fixed the appeal bond at five hundred dollars. On February 6, 1976, plaintiffs furnished the appeal bond and in addition paid to the clerk of the trial court the filing fee due to the clerk of the appellate court for lodging the appeal as well as certain listed costs due to the clerk of the trial court for preparation of the record on appeal exclusive of the cost of the transcript. It was indicated on the face of the clerk’s bill that a separate bill for the transcript cost would be for*179warded by the court reporter. On application of the deputy clerk preparing the record of appeal in which it was represented that the transcript would not be completed by the return day (March 24), the trial judge timely ordered the return day extended to May 21,1976. The transcript was completed by March 29 and the court reporter mailed a bill for her fee to the attorney representing David Davidge while counsel for T. H. Davidge received no notice of the fee for the transcript. When payment of the fee was not forthcoming, the court reporter refused to file the transcript with the clerk of the trial court. Not until forty days after the extended return day (June 30) was the complete record including the transcript of evidence adduced at trial lodged in the appellate court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the failure of plaintiffs to pay the court reporter her fee for the transcript resulted in the record not being timely filed in the court of appeal prior to the extended return day. On September 20, 1976, the court of appeal dismissed the appeal.1 We granted certiorari to review the correctness of this ruling.2
The law favors appeals. Thus, they are to be maintained unless a legal ground for dismissal is clearly shown. Howard v. Hardware Mutual Company, 286 So.2d 334 (La.1973); Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Lasseigne, 255 La. 579, 232 So.2d 278 (1970); Favrot v. Favrot, 252 La. 192, 210 So.2d 316 (1968). In line with this policy, La.Code Civ.P. art. 2161 provides in pertinent part:
An appeal shall not be dismissed because of any other irregularity, error or defect unless it is imputable to the appellant.
La.Code Civ.P. art. 21263 provides that:
The appellant shall pay to the clerk of the trial court, not later than three days prior to the return day or extended return day, all costs of preparing the record on appeal, and the filing fee required by the appellate court to lodge the appeal. (Emphasis added.)
Which fees are encompassed within the phrase “all costs of preparing the record on appeal” are set forth in La.R.S. 13:44454 which in pertinent part provides:
A. Not later than three days before the return day, or extended return day, of the appeal fixed by the trial court, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the trial court:
*180(1) The fees to be due the clerk of the appellate court for filing the record of appeal, under the applicable provision of R.S. 13:126 or R.S. 13:352; and
(2) The cost of transmitting the record of appeal to the clerk of the appellate court and all other fees due the clerk of the trial court for preparing the record of appeal.
Among the fees exacted for preparing the record on appeal which the appellant is obligated to pay in accordance with the above provisions is the cost of transcribing the trial testimony since the transcript is an integral and essential part of the appellate record.
While appellant has the obligation to timely pay the clerk of the trial court all costs of preparing the record on appeal as well as the filing fee required by the appellate court to lodge the appeal (La.Code Civ.P. art. 2126), the statutes also impose two obligations on the clerk of the trial court, the first of which is to prepare the record on appeal. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2127.5 The other duty imposed on the clerk of the trial court is set forth in La.Code Civ.P. art. 2125,6 which states:
The return day of the appeal shall be fixed by the trial court at not more than sixty days from the date the appeal is granted, but may be extended by the trial court for sufficient cause, on the application of the clerk, or of the deputy clerk preparing the record of appeal. (Emphasis added.)
This provision clearly imposes a duty on the clerk to apply to the trial court for extensions of the return day with the court then determining whether sufficient cause exists under the circumstances to justify an extension, for the responsibility of weighing the merits of extending the return day rests with the court, not the clerk of court. Consequently, where an appellant fails to advance all costs of preparing the record on appeal (including the cost of the transcript) and the filing fee required by the appellate court to lodge the appeal,7 the clerk is obligated to seek an extension of the return day. Upon this application, the trial court may grant the extension if sufficient cause has been demonstrated for the appellant’s failure to pay the fees or it may refuse any further delay.8 Non-compliance with this duty is fault attributable to the clerk of *181court and cannot prejudice an appellant’s right of appeal. To the extent that our former decision of Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Lasseigne, 255 La. 579, 232 So.2d 278 (1970) is inconsistent with our views expressed herein, it is overruled.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the instant case, when appellants failed to advance the cost of the transcript within the delay designated by La.Code Civ.P. art. 2126 and La.R.S. 13:4445, they violated an obligation imposed on them by these provisions. However, this breach on their part did not relieve the clerk of the trial court of his obligation to seek an extension of the extended return day from the trial court.9 His failure in this regard precluded judicial determination of the merits of extending the extended return day to afford appellants an opportunity to pay the cost of the transcript. This neglect is not imputable to appellants. Therefore, we consider that the appeal was improperly dismissed. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2161.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal dismissing this appeal is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for consideration of the merits. The costs in this court are taxed against respondent. The assessment of all other costs will await the final outcome of the appeal.
SANDERS, C. J., concurs in the result.
DIXON, J., concurs.
DENNIS, J., concurs, being of the opinion that fees due the court reporter were not fees due the clerk of court for preparing the record under R.S. 13:444(A)(2).