JUDGMENT 1. The only question raised before us in this appeal is whether the appeal in the lower Appellate Court was in time or not. The lower Appellate Court has decided that the appeal was not in time, relying upon the case of Gunga Dass Dey v. Ram Joy Dey ILR 12 Cal. 30 (1885). We think, however, that that case is not in point. It has been shown in the case of Dulali Bewa v. Saroda Kinkar Paulit 3 C.W.N. 55 (1898) which was followed in the case of Kali Sankar Bajpai v. Baikanta Nath Sen 7 C.W.N. 109 (1902) that the rule as to furnishing in formation with regard to the number of folios required for copies of judgments and decrees has been changed since the case in Gunga Dass Dey v. Ram Joy Dey ILR 12 Cal. 30 (1885) was decided. Now, in this case the Defendants were asked to furnish the required number of folios within 4 days. This request was made on 23rd September 1900; but the Court was closed then for the vacation. The Court had closed on the 22nd September 1900, and notwithstanding the order to file the folios in 4 days, it appears from the report of the compairing clerk, Narain Chunder Chowdhury, dated the 12th March 1901 (printed at page 14 of the paper-book), and the Affidavit of the Appellants' pleader's mohurir (page 15) that the comparing clerk, on the 23rd September, refused to receive the folios until the Court re-opened on the 26th October 1900. That being so, it was not within the power of the Appellants to file the folios within 4 days allowed to them for that purpose. The Appellants are, therefore, in our opinion entitled to a deduction of the time up to the 26th October 1900 as the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree in this case, and we think that the appeal which was presented on the 31st October 1900 is in time. 2. We accordingly allow this appeal and remand the case to the lower Appellate Court to be disposed of on the merits. The costs will abide the result.