Krishnan Pandalai, J.

1. The question is whether this appeal was presented in time. The material dates are as follows:

The appeal is from a preliminary decree on a mortgage passed ex parte by the Subordinate Judge of Madura in O.S. No. 128 of 1926 first on 8th August, 1928. The appellants, (defendants 1 and 4) applied under Order 9, Rule 13 on 9th August, 1928, to set aside the ex parte decree and the Court set it aside on 12th October, 1928. Meanwhile, the appellants had also on 9th August, 1928, applied for copies of the judgment and decree and they were ready for delivery on 27th September, 1928, so that, had the appellants wanted to appeal, they had out of the 90 days available about 1 1/2 months more after 12th October, 1928. As the decree was set aside by the Sub-Judge himself, no appeal was preferred. But the plaintiff (respondent) applied in C.R.P. No. 116 of 1929 to this Court to revise the order of the Sub-Judge setting aside the ex parte decree and this Court on 22nd November, 1929, set aside that order thus restoring the preliminary decree to effect. This appeal was presented on 6th January, 1930.

2. The provision of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 156 which