1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the time taken in obtaining a copy of the decree as well as the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment should be excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal. Under Section 12, Clauses (2) and (3), of the Limitation Act the appellant is entitled to a deduction of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree as well as the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment. The only question, therefore, is whether he is so entitled if he applies for copies of the judgment and decree at diffirent times. We think he is so entitled and that both the two periods should be excluded. . In support of this view there are several decisions of the Madras High Court. [See Raman Chetti v. Kadirvelu 8 M.L.J. 148, Silamban Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chetty 4 Ind Cas. : 30 : 83 M. 256 : 7 M.L.T. 29 : (1910) M.W.N. 141 : 21 M.L.J. 152 and Karnam Narasimhulu v. Secretary of State 17 Ind. Cas 393 : 12 M.L.T. 360.] If the two periods overlap partially or entirely the appellant is not entitled to have a deduction of the same time twice over, as was held in the case of Snndar Koer v. Raghunath Sahai 12 Ind. Cas. (sic). In the present case the judgment was delivered on 21st March and the decree was signed on 26th March 1914. Copy of the judgment was applied for on the 16th April and the copy was ready for delivery on the 22nd April. An application for a copy of the decree was made on 24th April and the copy was ready on 30th April 1924. The appeal was filed in the lower Appellate Court on 5th May 1914. Deducting, therefore, the time occupied in obtaining copies of the judgment and decree the appeal to the lower Appellate Court was in time. The decree of the lower Appellate Court will, therefore, be set aside and the case sent back to that Court for a re-hearing of the appeal on the merits. Costs of this appeal will abide the result.