Judgement This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of review passed by the learned District Judge, Goalpara, Dhubri. 2. The matter came up before the learned District Judge on remand from the High Court to hear the review application in accordance with law. The learned Judge after hearing the parties allowed the review application and held that the appeal before him was time-barred and since there was no application for condonation of delay, the appeal stood dismissed. 3. Mr. Dam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, raises only one point before me. He submits in a fair argument that he is conscious that he will be able to succeed in this application only if he can show that the learned District Judge was wrong in holding that the appeal before him was barred by limitation. He, therefore, made his submission only on the question of limitation with regard to that appeal. The learned Counsel has given me these dates. The judgment under appeal before the District Judge was passed on 18-11-1964. The decree was signed on 25-1-1965. Application for certified copy of judgment and decree was submitted on 24-11-1964. Mr. Dam submits that if he is entitled under Explanation of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. 1963, which is applicable in this case, to exclude the time that the office took in preparing the decree between 18-11-1964 and 25-1-1965, his appeal would not be barred by limitation. He, therefore, strenuously submitted that the Explanation to Section 12 assists him in this case, and, according to him, the submission which he makes is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Assam LR (1972) Assam and Nag 8. It is, therefore, necessary to find what we have decided in that Division Bench case. It is true, as Mr. Dam points out, that that case had to deal with an application for copy of the decree which was filed after the signing of the decree. Even so, Mr. Dam does not submit that because of this the law is differently propounded by us in that decision. He submits that the law enunciated assists him even in this case where the application has been made before the signing of the decree. Since, therefore, Mr. Even so, Mr. Dam does not submit that because of this the law is differently propounded by us in that decision. He submits that the law enunciated assists him even in this case where the application has been made before the signing of the decree. Since, therefore, Mr. Dam has taken that stand, it is only necessary for me to find out what is the net result in law of the above decision of the Division Bench. After hearing Mr. Dam and in acknowledgement of the aid Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel, has rendered as amicus curiae in this case. I am clearly of opinion that this Division Bench decision will cover in law a case where an application for copy has been made both before and after the signing of the decree. I have been taken through the judgment of the Division Bench very closely by Mr. Dam and I am clearly of opinion that this Court has interpreted the Explanation in clear terms. The Court in that case observed : "It is, therefore, manifest that the time taken by the Court before an application for a copy of the decree is made shall not be taken into account in calculating the time requisite for obtaining a copy. When the New Act is applicable, we have to take a fresh look at the matter. The word "obtaining" becomes significant, Etymologically "obtain" means "to get"; "to procure by effort". Therefore the time requisite for obtaining a copy must be after the appellant or the applicant makes an effort by making an application for getting the copy. Hence giving effect to all the words appearing in the Explanation, the conclusion is irresistible that the time taken by the Court to prepare the decree or order prior to the making of the application for a copy cannot be excluded in computing the period of limitation, (para 8)." Mr. Dam, however, draws my attention to the remaining sentence in the paragraph to show that this law, which we have propounded applies to the cases that we had to deal with. According to my view these sentences which illustrated the case in hand were necessary to apply the law which we have propounded in interpreting the Explanation to Section 12. Dam, however, draws my attention to the remaining sentence in the paragraph to show that this law, which we have propounded applies to the cases that we had to deal with. According to my view these sentences which illustrated the case in hand were necessary to apply the law which we have propounded in interpreting the Explanation to Section 12. Since we are unable to allow the portion of the time which was necessary for the Court to prepare the decree from 18-11-64 to 24-11-64, there is no error of jurisdiction on the part of the learned District Judge in holding that the appeal before him was time barred under the law. 4. The application, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. As no one appears on behalf of the opposite party, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.