JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The plaintiffs' suit for possession of land was decreed by the Subordinate Judge on 30th November 1925 and the defendants preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Lahore, on 8th January 1926, i.e., on the 39th day after the delivery of the judgment of the trial Court. The plaintiffs-respondents objected that the appellants were entitled to an extension of eight days only on account of the time spent in obtaining copies of the judgment and decree appealed against and that the appeal was but of time by one day. This objection was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge (L. Topan Ram) who was of opinion that no sufficient cause for extending time under Section 5, Lim. Act, had been made out. The defendants have preferred a second appeal to this Court and two questions have been argued before me.

2. It is contended by Mr. Mohsin Shah for the appellants that the learned Additional District Judge should have in the peculiar circumstances of this case held that the appeal had been presented within time and secondly that even if this Court agreed with the view taken by him that the appeal had been filed beyond the period of limitation, it should be held that the learned Additional District Judge has not exercised his discretion according to sound judicial principles in refusing to extend time under Section 5.

3. As regards the first of these contentions Mr. Mohsin Shah's contention is that the application for the copy of the trial Court's judgment was made on 9th December 1925 and that for the copy of the decree was made on 14th December 1925, that both these copies were as a matter of fact completed on 23rd December 1925 and were delivered to his clients on that date. He, therefore, claims that he is entitled as of right to deduct the period from 9ths December to the 23rd December, (i.e., 15 days) under Section 12, Lim. Act. The endorsements on the copies of the judgment and the decree of the trial Court, which the defendants-appellants actually filed with the memorandum of appeal in the District Court show, however, that the former was complete on 16th December and the latter on 15th. According to these dates the appellants were entitled to deduct eight days only and this is the period which has been allowed to them by the Additional District Judge. An examination of the endorsements on the copies shows that the revising and attesting officer of the copying department had not complied with Rule 17, Clause (2), printed at p. 34, Vol. 3 of the rules and orders of this Court, in asmuchas he had not entered on the last page the date on which he attested the copies nor did he give the date on each sheet of the judgment as he should have done. This defect led the defendants to contend that the endorsements by the copyists on the copies showing that they had been completed on 15th and 16th December 1925 respectively, were incorrect and that the copies had really been completed on 23rd. Accordingly the office of the District Judge called for a report from the officer in charge of the copying department to state on what date the copies had actually been attested. The said officer in turn called for a report from the copyist concerned) and on 17th February 1926 he reported to the District Judge that the copy of the decree was ready on 15th and that of the judgment on 16th December. Along with his own report he sent the report which had been submitted to him by the copyist.

4. On the case coming up before the Additional District Judge on 31st March 1926 an objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that the appeal was barred by time. On that date affidavits were filed, by Sayed Mohsin Shah, advocate for the appellants and by Muhammad AH, clerk of Sh. Abdul Aziz, advocate and Abdul Karim, one of the appellants. In the first of these affidavits Sayad Mohsin Shah deposed that he had prepared and signed the memorandum of appeal on 5th January 1926 and had handed it over to his clerk Muhammad Hussain