Vepa Ramesam, Kt. Officiating C.J.

1. The facts out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises are as follow:

2. The suit was filed on an unregistered bond, dated 26th February, 1915. The bond was taken in favour of a minor by his guardian. The minor attained majority on 12th May, 1920 and computing three years provided under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, the suit ought to have been filed on or within the 12th May, 1923. But on that date the District Munsifs Court of Peddapur was closed and so the suit was filed on the re-opening day, i.e., 4th June, 1923. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was in time, and on second appeal our brother Reilly, J., agreed with the Subordinate Judges view. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment of Reilly, J. The question is whether Section 4 of the Limitation Act can be utilised after getting an extension by reason of the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act.

3. I may at once observe that there is no direct decision on the point. The learned advocates have referred us to decisions with reference to Section 4 and other sections which have a possible bearing. First we have got a decision in Namsimha Deo Garu v.