JUDGMENT Woodroffe, J. - A preliminary objection has been taken that this appeal is time-barred, The Appellant contends that, under the provisions of sec. 12 of the Limitation Act, he is entitled to a deduction of 14 days on account of the time expended in obtaining copies of the judgment and decree. 2. I think, however, it is quite clear that he is not entitled to a deduction of this time inasmuch as the application for a copy of the judgment and of the decree were made on the same day, i.e., the 24th May 1905. Copy of the judgment was obtained on the 31st May 1905 and copy of the decree on the 1st June 1905. Therefore the time to be deducted would be the longer of those periods. 3. This also appears to be the view of the learned Judges who admitted this appeal. On that occasion two affidavits were Bled, one by the Appellant and the other by his pleader and the Court was asked to allow the appeal to be admitted and registered as if it had been filed in time. The order of the Court passed on that application was as follows: "We are satisfied on the affidavit of Babu Bishen Pershad, Vakil, that the delay in filing the appeal was due to an excusable mistake on his part and not to any laches on the part of the Appellant. We think sufficient cause has been shown for allowing the appeal to be admitted and for filing it out of time. We order accordingly." This order which was dated the 23rd November 1905 was made ex parte and is therefore not conclusive on the Respondent who now objects that the appeal is barred. 4. At the same time, I should not be disposed, under the circumstances, to interfere with the order which my learned brothers passed on this appeal unless clear grounds were made out of an interference which would in effect amount to a reversal of their decision. No facts, I may say here, have been placed before us which were not before them. As against the admission of the appeal, reference has been made by learned Counsel who appears for the Respondent to the decision of the Appeal Court in the matter of In re Coles and Ravenskear (1907) 1 K. B. 1 (1906). No facts, I may say here, have been placed before us which were not before them. As against the admission of the appeal, reference has been made by learned Counsel who appears for the Respondent to the decision of the Appeal Court in the matter of In re Coles and Ravenskear (1907) 1 K. B. 1 (1906). However, it appears from the judgment given in that case that the Master of the Rolls and Cozens Hardy, L. J., would have approved of a rule different from that which they laid down, were it not that they considered that they were constrained to the conclusion that the appeal was barred by the state of the authorities which were binding upon them. Reference has also been made to two Indian cases, Gopal Chandra Lahiri v. Solomon I. L. R. 13 Cal. 62 (1886) and Jag Lal v. Har Narayan Singh I. L. R. 10 All. 524 (1888). 5. I think, however, that each case must be decided upon its own facts. In the present case, the appeal is out of time by only two days and the fact that it is out of time for this short period is due to what is undoubtedly a bond fide mistake made by the pleader for the Appellant. What happened was that in making the usual calculation for fixing the period of limitation in filing the appeal, he [overlooked the circumstance that the application for copy had been made before, and not after the decree had been signed. There is no material before us nor has any affidavit) been filed by the Respondent to show that there was any intentional desire to delay on the part of the Appellant. Further, this objection has been taken unnecessarily late and after the Appellant has incurred costs. It appears from paragraph 7 of Babu Bishen Pershad's affidavit that on the 15th November and possibly before that date, the pleader for the Respondent was aware that the appeal had been filed out of time. On the 23rd November 1905, the order was made ex parte admitting the appeal. On the 15th February 1906, the Respondent filed a vakalutnamah. On the 26th April 1906, he filed his list of papers. The paper-book of the Appellant was prepared and costs were incurred. On the 23rd November 1905, the order was made ex parte admitting the appeal. On the 15th February 1906, the Respondent filed a vakalutnamah. On the 26th April 1906, he filed his list of papers. The paper-book of the Appellant was prepared and costs were incurred. From November 1905 until to day, that is nearly two years, nothing was done for the purpose of enforcing this objection. 6. I think myself that the objection might have been enforced by an application made to this Court directly the Respondent became aware of the ex parte order asking that that order should be discharged. If the application had been successful it would have saved unnecessary costs. As I have said, each case must be decided on its own facts, There is authority of this Court for the admission of this appeal. Though the order was made ex-parte and is not conclusive on the Respondent, having regard to the facts of this case and to the circumstance that the decision in favour of the admission of the appeal was given on those very facts, I would not, even if I were disposed to do so, dissent from It. I am therefore of opinion that the objection should be overruled and that this appeal should be heard upon the merits. Coxa, J. 7. I agree that the appeal should be heard. If this were an application for an admission of an appeal, I think it would be somewhat difficult to grant it, having regard to the judgment of James, L. J., in International Financial Society v. City of Moscow Gas Co. 7 Ch. Div. 241 (1877), which has been quoted and followed in the ruling cited by my learned brother. But this is not an application for an admission of the appeal. The appeal was admitted almost two years ago by two learned Judges of this Court after consideration of all the facts which have been laid before us to-day. Since then, the record has been printed and costs incurred. After all this has been done and all this time has been allowed to elapse, it would be unduly hard on the Appellant to reject the appeal summarily because it was originally presented two days late. [The appeal was then heard on the merits and judgment was delivered on the 6th August 1907 dismissing the appeal with costs.]