Subba Rao, J.
1. These two applications are filed for review of a judgment and decree in A. S. No. 351 of 1945 and A. S. No. 78 of 1946. The judgment was delivered on 12-4-1949. These applications were filed on 11-7-1949, i. e., on the 90th day from the date of judgment. The relevant articles of the Court-fees Act read thus :
'Art.4 : Application for review of judgment, if presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree.
Thefee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal
Art.5 : Application for review of judgment, if presented before theninetieth day from the data of the decree
Onehalf of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.
2. As the 89th day happened to be a Sunday, and therefore a holiday, the petitioner contended that Article 5 applied, and that, he need only pay one half of the fee leviable on the memorandum of appeal. The Master rejected that contention relying upon tha decision in In re Kota, 9 Mad. 134. The learned Judgea in that case held that in computing the period of 89 days from the date of decree, within which an application for review of judgment may be presented on payment of half the fee payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal, the time during which the Court is closed for vacation cannot be excluded. This decision waa given in the year 1885, and it has stood the test of time, and though the learned counsel contended that the judgment is not sound, we are not inclined to take a different view. Even so, it is argued that the applicant should be given a certificate authorising him to receive back from the Collec-tor so much of the fees paid on the application as exceeds the fee which would be payable had at been presented before such date under the provisions of Section 14, Court-fees Acts. Under that section, 'where an application for a review of judgment is presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree, the Court, unless the delay was caused by the applicant's laches, may, in its discretion, grant him a certificate 'like the one required.' The only question, therefore, is whether the applicant can be said, in the circumstances of the case, to be guilty of lacbea, If the 89th day, happened to be ja working day, the applicant would have paid half the court-fee and Schedule I Article 5 would have applied. But, unfortunately, aa that day hap-pened to be a holiday, he was not able to comply with the provisions of Article 5. The default is not because of his laches but because of an accident, namely, the last day happening to be a holiday.
3. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner is not guilty of any laches, and we direct a certificate to be issued in the manner prescribed under Section 14, Court-fees Act, in both the review applications.