M.C. Tripathi, J. - (1.)The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appeal filed before the lower appellate court was time -barred.
(2.)The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Court below erroneously believed that an application for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was necessary and dismissed the appeal as time barred because it had received the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that there was no necessity at all for an application for condonation of delay and that the appeal filed was within lime after excluding the periods taken for obtaining a copy of the judgment and a copy of decree.
(3.)The judgment of the trial Court is dated 4 -12 -1963. The appellant applied for a copy of the judgment on 10 -12 -1963 and the copy was ready on 2 -1 -1964. He was entitled to an exclusion of 24 days in computation of the period of limitation. He could, therefore, file an appeal on 27/1/1964. Three days before that i.e. on 24 -1 -1964, he applied for a copy of the decree and obtained it on 25 -1 -1964. Thus, he could file the appeal on 29/1/1964 the appeal was actually filed on 28 -1 -1964