Madhavan Nair, J.

1. I entirely agree with the judgment which ray learned brother, Jackson, J., will presently deliver and I have nothing useful to add to it.

Jackson, J.

2. The 9th respondent takes a preliminary objection that this appeal is out of time. The date of the decree and judgment of the Lower Court is 24th February, 1927. On 1st March, 1927, the plaintiff applied for copy and obtained it after 34 days had been occupied by the copying department. He has since died, and it is not known what he did with that copy.

3. He applied again for copy on 20th April, 1927, and since the recess intervened, the time occupied by the department was 82 days. The appeal was filed on 13th August, and if this 82 days be reckoned as the time requisite for obtaining copy, the appeal is within time. But on behalf of 9th respondent it is argued that the appellant himself has demonstrated the time requisite to be only 34 days, and if that figure be taken the appeal is time-barred.

4. The time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree mentioned in Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act is the time beyond the applicants control occupied by the copyist department after an application for cop