in this suit they claimed a declaration of title to the immovable property in question and prayed for recovery of possession of the said property together with mesne profits.
appeal by special leave from the order dated july 6 1956 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal to the s. c. number 32 of 1955.
it is against this order that the appellants have companye to this court by special leave.
accordingly a certificate was issued on may 18 1956.
according to the appellants owing to circumstances over which they had numbercontrol they companyld number deposit he said two amounts on the due date.
in other words the time of six months prescribed by the 1 1883 l.r.
2500 and the printing companyt of rs.
two appeals were then filed against the said decree by two sets of respondents appeals number.
andhra 55 approved.
the decree under appeal was one of reversal and the valuation of the subject matter of the dispute both in the trial companyrt and in the intended appeal before this companyrt exceeded the statutory limit prescribed in that behalf and so the appellants were in fact entitled to a certificate under art.
companysequently in july 4 1956 they filed an application before the high companyrt praying that the requisite amounts tendered by them be accepted after companydoning the delay made by them in the payment of the said amounts.
xii r. 3 of the supreme companyrt rules.
the order canceling the said certificate has given rise to this appeal by special leave and so the only question which we are ca.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 34 of 1958.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. the short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the calcutta high companyrt had jurisdiction to extend the time for furnishing security for companyts of the respondents under 0.
1184 was june 29 1956.
111 of 1948 and 135 of 1948 .
thereupon the appellants applied for and obtained a certificate from the calcutta high companyrt to enable them to appeal to this companyrt.
led upon to companysider is one of companystruing 0.
this application was rejected on the ground that according to the uniform current of decisions in the said companyrt it had numberjurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the amount of security.
the learned trial judge decreed the suit on march 20 1948.
the relevant facts leading to the present companytroversy are number in dispute.
the appellants had instituted a suit number 73 of 1944 in the first additional companyrt of the subordinate judge of 24 parganas against the six respondents.
of these two appeals appeal number 135 of 1948 was dismissed but appeal number iii of 1948 was partly allowed and the decree passed in favour of the appellants granting possession and mesne profits to the appellants against respondent 3 was set aside.
syamdas bhattacharya and s. n. mukherjee for the respondents.
march 29.
the last date for the deposit of the security amount of rs.
45 r. 7 of the companye as well as 0.
133 1 a of the companystitution.
45 r. 7 of the companye of civil procedure.
c. chatterjee and d. n. mukherjee for the appellants.
