JUDGMENT 1. We think that the Court below was not right in throwing out the appeal presented to it, upon the ground that it was out of time. The Appellant was entitled to a deduction of the period required for taking a copy of the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. He did make his application for such copy on the 15th October, the day next to that on which the decree was signed, but no information was supplied to him as to the number of folios required under the provisions of the Circular Order No. 18, dated the 23rd June 1870. It so happened, however, that the Court was closed for the Dusserah vacation from the 16th October to the 17th November 1898. The information as to the number of folios required was supplied on the 18th November, and on the same day the Appellant put in the folios, and the copy was ready for delivery on the 21st November. The appeal was presented on the 19th December. It is quite clear that if the period from the 15th October to the 21st November be deducted, the appeal was quite within time. The Subordinate Judge, however, relying upon the decision of this Court in Gunga Dass Dey v. Ramjoy Dey I. L. R. 12 Cal. 30 (1885), held that the Appellant w as not entitled to a deduction of the period of time taken in obtaining the copies. That case is, however, distinguishable from this case in this respect, that three insufficient folios were put in by the Appellant, and so the Office of the Subordinate Judge was not in a position to make the necessary copy; but here, no information as to the number of folios required was supplied to the Appellant until the 18th November, and on the very same day he put in the requisite folios. 2. We think, in these circumstances, the Appellant was entitled to a deduction of the period between the 15th October and the 18th November. But even if the Appellant was not strictly within his rights, it was quite open to the Subordinate Judge to extend the period of limitation, having regard to the provisions of sec. 2. We think, in these circumstances, the Appellant was entitled to a deduction of the period between the 15th October and the 18th November. But even if the Appellant was not strictly within his rights, it was quite open to the Subordinate Judge to extend the period of limitation, having regard to the provisions of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act; and that seems to have been the view adopted by this Court in the case of Dulali Bewa v. Saroda Kinkar Paulit 3 C. W. N. 55 (1898). 3. The appeal will be allowed, and the case sent back to the Court of Appeal below for being dealt with according to law. 4. The court-fee upon the memorandum of appeal presented to this Court will be refunded to the Appellant. We make no order as to costs in this appeal.