GORAKH RAM Vs. DHANNU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 12-8-1960 this Court granted a certificate-under Article 133(1) (a) of the Constitution to the appellants and under Order 45, Rule 7, C.P.C., they were bound to furnish security and to deposit the amount to defray the expenses of translating, transcribing etc. and transmitting to the Supreme Court a correct copy of the whole record within a certain time. They failed to make the initial deposit and to apply for preparation of the paper book as required by Rules of Court within the prescribed time. Hence the office listed the case before us for orders. Sri H. N. Seth orally asked for time to make the initial deposit and to apply for preparation of the paper book. He contended that cancellation of the certificate is not mandatory and that we have jurisdiction to extend the time. After having heard him at length I am convinced that we have no jurisdiction to extend the time at all.

(2.) The procedure relating to appeals to the Supreme Court is contained in Order 45, C.P.C., and Order 12 of the Supreme Court Rules. The relevant rule in Order 45 is Rule 7, which lays down that

(3.) There are two facts, to be noticed; (1) that the rule contains provision for extension of the time and (2), that it does not provide for the failure to furnish the security or deposit the amount. When the rule itself fixes a limit to the period by which the prescribed period of 90 days may be extended, it means that the court has not the power to grant any further extension. The court cannot extend the period by more than 60 days in any circumstance; in other words Rule 7 does not permit any extension of the prescribed period by more than 60 days. More than 150 days have expired from the date of the decree complained of and as far as Order 45 is concerned, we have no power to extend the time for furnishing the security and depositing the amount.