Mullick, J.The decree was signed on the 6th of June 1914; application for copy was made on the 12th of June 1914 and on that day some folios and stamps were filed. On the 13th of June 1914, information was given to the appellant before the District Judge that more folios were required. On the 15th of June the balance of the folios was supplied. The copies were delivered on the 18th of June; the appeal was filed on the 15th of July. There having been no unreasonable delay on the part of the appellant to supply folios and to follow up his application for copy of the 12th of June, I think the appellant was entitled to the whole of the time from the lath of June 1914 to the 18th of June 1914. The appeal would, therefore, have been in time if filed on the 13th of July. Now the appellant filed an affidavit before the District Judge stating that he could not get a stamp on the 13th of July; the 14th of July was a holiday and the appeal was filed on the 15th of July. The appeal was, in my opinion, in time. It would seem that the learned Judge is in error in holding that the appeal would have been barred if presented on the 13th of July and I invite his attention to Dulali Bewa v. Saroda Kinkar Paulit 3 CWN 55 The learned District Judge does not say that the affidavit is false and if the affidavit is correct, then the delay of two days from the 13th of July to the 15th of July ought to have been excused u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal is decreed with costs and the District Judge is directed to hear the appeal.