Agarwala, J. - (1.) A certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution was granted in the above appeal on 9-9-1955. Under Rule 7 of Order 45, Civil P. C., the appellant was to deposit Rs. 2,500/- as security within six weeks. On 4-11-1955, the applicant made an application for being allowed two weeks' further time within Which to deposit the necessary security money. The application was ordered to be put up on 11-11-1955, for orders. On 11-11-1955, the applicant made an application that the money had been received, that he might be allowed to deposit the necessary security and that the delay may be condoned. This application was opposed by Mr. Kirti on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Hari Swarup learned counsel for the appellant was permitted to deposit the security money in Court, if deposited within 24 hours. The security, we are informed, was duly deposited on 12-11-1955.
(2.) Mr. Kirti, on behalf of the respondent, has urged that, firstly this Court has no jurisdiction to grant further time to deposit the security and, secondly, that there is no sufficient reason to extend the time of six weeks allowed under Order 45, Rule 7, Civil P. C.
(3.) As regards the preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant further time to deposit the security amount, the relevant Rules are Rule 7 of Order 45, Civil P. C. & Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, 1950. Order 45, Rule 7, prescribes a period of 90 days or such further period, not exceeding 60 days as the Court may upon cause shown allow, from the date of the decree complained of, or within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate. As 90 days plus 60 days had long expired, the period of six weeks has to be taken into account in the present case. The Civil Procedure Code does not give power to the Court to extend the period of six weeks prescribed by Rule 7. Under the procedure prevailing before the commencement of the Constitution when appeals lay to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, there was a Rule of the Judicial Committee Rule 9 of the Privy Council Rules, which was as follows: "When an Appellant having obtained a certificate for the admission of an Appeal, fails to furnish the security or make the deposit required (or apply with due diligence to the Court for an Order admitting the Appeal), the Court may, on its own motion or on an application in that behalf made by the Respondent, cancel the certificate for the admission of the Appeal, and may give such directions as to the costs of the Appeal & the security entered into by the Appellant as the Court shall think fit, or make such further or other Order in the premises as, in the opinion of the Court, the justice of the case requires." This Court in a Full Bench decision -- 'Bishnath Singh v. Collector, Benares', AIR 1939 All 299 (FB) (A) held that Rule 9 of the Privy Council Rules authorised the High Court to extend the period allowed for furnishing the security and making the deposit required by Order 45, Rule 7, Civil P. C. The phrase 'or make such further or other Order in the premises as, in the opinion of the Court, the justice of the case requires' was held to empower the High Court to oo so. After the commencement of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has adopted the very same Rule, with slight verbal alterations and the Rule is now 3 of Order 12 which reads as follows: "Where an appellant, having obtained a certificate from the High Court, fails to furnish the Security or make the deposit required, that Court may, on its own motion or on application in that behalf made by the respondent, cancel the certificate and may give such directions as to the costs, of the appeal and the security entered into by the appellant as it shall think fit or make such further or other order as the justice of the case requires." Prima facie, therefore, by applying the principles laid down by the Pull Bench, this Court would have power under Rule 3 of Order 12, of the Supreme Court Rules, to grant such further time for depositing security as the justice of the case requires.;