1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Guntur declaring that the respondent has not forfeited his seat under Section 56 (1) (h), Local Boards Act. Admittedly the respondent did not attend the meeting of the Taluk Board of Ongole on 10th July 1926. There was again a meeting, of the Board on 12th August 1926 which the respondent did not attend. There were no meetings in September and October. There was a meeting on 13th November 1926 which he attended. A question was raised whether he had forfeited his seat by reason of his non-attendance at the two meetings in July and August. The District Judge held; hat he did not forfeit his seat in as-much as he did not fail to attend two meetings in three months. Clause 1 (h), Section 56 runs as follows:
Subject to the provisions of Section 57, a member of a Local Board shall cease to hold office, if he fails for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Local Board.
2. The learned Judge calculates three months excluding the date of the first meeting which the respondent failed to attend. This is clearly wrong. The law is that a member of a Local Board shall cease to hold office if he fails to attend the meetings of the Local Board for three consecutive months. There must be at least two meetings which he fails to attend. There may be more, but the failure must be to attend for three consecutive months What is urged for the respondent is that the time must be calculated from the date of the first default and reliance is placed upon Goldsmith’ Co. v. Western Metropolitan Ry.  1 K.B. 1. No doubt for the purpose of calculating limitation the date on which judgment is delivered or an act is done is excluded from calculation. But that principle does not apply to a case like this, for the law clearly says:
A member of a Local Board shall cease to hold his office, if he fails for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Local Board.
3. Here the respondent failed to attend during three consecutive months two meetings of the Board in July and August. The last meeting he attended was on 14th June 1926 and the next was on 13th November 1926. For three months from July to November there were two meetings which he failed to attend. The respondent has clearly brought himself within Clause (h) Section 56 (1). This point is covered by an authority of this Court. Venkatasubba Rao and Reilly, JJ. decided in Mariya Pillai v. Muthuvelu Pandaram A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 877 that the period of absence for three consecutive months is to be computed from the date of his first default in attending the meeting and they followed, Kershaw v. Mayor etc., of Shoreditch  22 T.L.R. 302. The order of the learned Judge is clearly wrong in asmuch as it is against the clear provisions of Section 56(1)(h) and also the decision of this Court in Mariya Pillai v. Muthuvelu Pandaram A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 877.
4. The next question is whether I should interfere with the order. There is no question of jurisdiction involved in this case. Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar wants to contend that the wrong construction of the section is a question of jurisdiction. It is too late in the day to put forward such a contention. Seeing that this matter is nearly two years’ old and that no damage has been caused to anybody by the respondent being declared to be a member of the Taluk Board, there is no need to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The petition is dismissed but without costs.