1. This case raises a question as to the meaning of the words ' time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree appealed from' in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act which provided for the exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation prescribed for the appeal. The appellant in this applied within the prescribe d period for a copy of the decree but allowed the application to be dismissed for non-payment of the copying charges. He subsequently filed the appeal together with a copy of the decree which had been obtained by another party, and claimed a deduction under the section, of the time taken in obtaining such a copy. It was held in Ramamurthi Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar : (1902)12MLJ385 that he was not entitled to the deduction but the Allahabad High Court in Ramakistan Shastari v. Kasti Bai I.L.R(1907) All. 264 dissented from this ruling for which no reasons are given and we are unable to follow it. As has often been pointed out this and other sections of the Limitation Act must be read together with the corresponding provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. If we so read them it is clear that the copy of the decree appealed from which is mentioned in the section, is the copy of the decree appealed from which has to accompany the memorandum of Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1(formerly Section 541) C.P. Code. The Code does not require that the copy of the decree accompanying the memorandum should have been obtained on the application of the appellant himself and there are no grounds for importing this restriction into Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The appellant was in order when he presented a copy obtained by another party with his memorandum and was entitled under, the section to the deduction claimed. We must therefore overrule the objection that the appeal is out of time.