- (1.) The important question raised in both the applications is whether the Court has power to extend time in these two matters.
(2.) In the case of the Structural Waterproofing Co. Pr. Ltd. there was an order passed on December 17, 1963. The order was as follows: Upon the Defendant furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar for Rs. 8,750 by 10th January, 1964, cross order for discovery by 18th January, 1964, inspection forthwith thereafter and the suit will appear on the top of the prospective list on 27ith January, 1964. Liberty to apply. In default of security being furnished in terms of this order, there will be a final judgment in terms of prayers (a) and (b). In case of security being furnished cost will be in the cause. Registrar to act on signed copy of the minutes. It will appear that time to furnish security was till January 10, 1964. The summons was taken out on January 30, 1964.
(3.) In the other case of Parmeshwarilal Ganeriwala, which is a suit instituted under Order 37 of the Code, an order was made on December 19, 1963, whereby the Defendant who was the Petitioner was given leave to defend the suit upon the condition of furnishing security for the sum of Rs. 6,000 to the satisfaction of the Registrar by January 31, 1964. Thereafter, the time to furnish security was extended till February 7, 1964. The present summons was taken out on February 4, 1964.;