- (1.)This is an appeal from an order rejecting an appeal on the ground that it was out of time, A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies as the order is not a decree as defined by Section 2 of the. Civil Procedure Code. If we had to consider the point apart from authority, we might have felt disposed to adopt the view put forward on behalf of the respondent. The balance of authority, however, is strongly against this view. The precise point was decided against the respondent in Gulab Rai V/s. Mangli Lal I.L.R. 7 A. 42 and Raghunatha Gopal V/s. Nilu Nathoji 8 I.L.R. 9 B. 452 Ganga Dass Dey V/s. Ramjoy Dey I.L.R. 12 C. 30. The principle of these decisions was applied by this Court in the cases of (Ayyanna v. Nagabhooshanam I.L.R. 16 M. 285 and Zemindar of Tuni V/s. Bennayya I.L.R. 22 M. 155).
(2.)Having regard to these authorities we are not disposed to say that no appeal lies in the present case. The preliminary objection is overruled.
(3.)In this case judgment was delivered on December 22, 1900, the last day before the Christmas vacation at 4 P.M. when, according to the practice of the Court, papers were not received. The appellant made his application for a copy of the Judgment on January 7 1901, the day on which the Court re-opened after the Christmas holidays, and presented his appeal on a day which would be in time if he is entitled to deduct the period during which the Court was closed. His contention is that, in computing the period for appeal, the time during which the Court was closed should be deducted.