Curgenven, J.

1. The appellants are the decree-holders in a mortgage suit. They obtained a preliminary decree for Rs. 15,000 odd on 16th March 1925. Time for redemption was allowed up to the 16th June. The debt was not redeemed and a first application for passing a final decree was made on 10th February 1927. The decree-holders failed to take certain steps in connexion with the issue of notice and the application was dismissed on 3rd October 1927. A second application, the one out of which this appeal arises, was filed on 6th July 1928. This was more than three years after the date of redemption. Taking into account the effect of the Courts vacation, the latest date on which it could have been filed was the 2nd July. It was accordingly four days late. On an application being filed under Section 5, Lim. Act, to excuse the delay the lower Court has found that the delay of one of those four days has not been satisfactorily accounted for. It also appeared doubtful -whether Section 5 would apply to such a case. The application was therefore dismissed as time-barred.

2. In this appeal from that order the appellants learned advocate instead of pursuing the line of argument used in t