Jaikissen Baram and Others vs Baijnath Ram Marwari

In this case the decree of the High court was made on the 22nd December 1926. The certificate u/s 110, civil P.C. was given on the 6th April 1927, that is to say, after ninety days had already expired. Computing six weeks from the date of the certificate time for depositing the security expired on the 18th May 1927. It is admitted that the security was not tendered on or before that day the appellant, however, prays that we should allow him an extension of sixty days under Rule 7, Order 45, Civil P.C. If he had got that extension, the time for depositing security would have expired on the 21st May. He says that he did not tender the money on that day; but knowing that the Court was not sitting he took it for granted that the money would be received on Monday the 23rd. The office of the Court, however, was open and the appellant could have deposited the money before the Deputy Registrar. The maximum period of sixty days allowed by Rule 7 has now expired and the appellant not having taken any steps to comply with the terms of Rule 7 before the expiry of that time, I do not think it is open to us to extend the time any further.

It was held in this Court in Ramani Ranjan Bilas Upadhya and Another Vs. Durga Dutt and Others, that ordinarily time will not, be extended beyond six weeks from the date of the certificate; but if cogent reasons are shown, time may be extended up to the 15th day from the date of the decree Here the only cogent reason given is that the appellant, being a resident of the Sontbal Pergannas, was still under the impression that the period of limitation was six months from the date of the decree. That excuse cannot be entertained. The CPC was amended in 1920 and it is too late for the appellant now to urge that he was ignorant of the law. So that, even if we had been able to entertain the application for extension of time, the reason assigned would have been inadequate.

The result is that, in one opinion, time cannot be extended in this case and the proceedings must be terminated till further orders are received from the Privy Council. We may mention that the learned Counsel for the appellant states that he had the money ready in Court on Monday, the 23rd May. The respondent is entitled to his costs. Hearing fee: two gold mohurs.