( 1 ) THIS Rule, which was obtained inter alia under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, raises some questions of importance. The points, are more or less pf first impression and require careful consideration, depending, inter alia, as they do, on the construction of the relevant statutes.

( 2 ) THE Rule was obtained under the following circumstances: The petitioner was the defendant in Commercial Suit No. 304 of 1961 of the Third Bench of the local City Civil Court, brought by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of Rs. 2,678-03 np. as price of goods sold and interest. That suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge on December 23, 1963. The decree; however, was actually signed on January 17, 1964. An application for copies of the judgment and the decree appears to have been made oil January 21, 1964, and the copies were made ready and taken delivery of on February 22, 1964. On the next day, which was a Sunday, the petitioner saw the learned Advocate, Sri Asoke Kumar Sengupta, with a view to 6le an appeal from the above decree and he was told by the said learned Advocate that the last day for filing the same would be March 20, 1964. The appeal was actually