1. This case raises a question as to the meaning of the words 'time requisite for obtaining a copy of the degree appealed from' in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, which provides for the exclusion of such time in computing the period of limitation prescribed for the appeal. The appellant in this case applied within the prescribed period for a copy of the decree but allowed the application to be dismissed for non-payment of the copying charges. He subsequently Sled 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 12 M.L.J. 885 that he was not entitled to the deduction, bat the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kishan, Shatri v. Kashi Bai 29 A. 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 Civil Procedure Code, 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 XLI, Rule 1 (formerly Section 541), Civil Procedure 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.