1. It was certainly irregular on the part of the judge, who disallowed the appellant's claim, not to have dated the order, whereby he disallowed it. But this irregularity does not, in our opinion, invalidate the order. There being a valid order, the date may. be proved by other evidence, and in the case before us, the evidence of the Sheristadar and the A diary initialled by the judge show that the order disallowing the appellant's claim was.really made, as stated by the judge, on the 15th March 1887, more than one year prior to the date of the present suit. As regards the contention that the date cannot be proved except by the order itself under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, we think it cannot be supported. If it were to prevail, there would be no limitation. at all in the cases of orders which are not dated from oversight. Having regard to Sections 578 and 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we cannot consider the omission to date the order fatal to its acquiring legal operation from the date on which it was made, and we are of opinion that the omission to date it is a mere error of form, which does not preclude the date from being proved by other evidence.
2. The decision of the judge that the suit was barred by limitation is correct and we dismiss this second appeal with costs.