JUDGMENT
1. The applicant in this case is one Joti Prasad, and he, on the 18th October, 1927, obtained a certificate from this Court giving him leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It was his duty to deposit Rs. 4,000 in cash, or Government securities, by January 3, 1928, at the latest. It was also his duty to deposit the sum of Rs. 289 7-0 being the costs, of translation and printing, and that amount had also to be deposited by the 3rd of January, 1928, and not later. On or about the 20th of December, 1927, Joti Prasad obtained a banker’s draft from the Saharanpur branch of the Imperial Bank. The Bank made it out in the name of Chaudhri Joti Prasad. “Chaudhri”, as put upon the face of the draft, happened to be not a name but a title of courtesy, such as “Munshi”, “Pandit” or “Mister”. Joti Prasad endorsed the draft in his proper full name of “Joti Prasad,” and then endorsed the draft in favour of the Registrar. This he did on the 22nd of December, 1927. The Registrar presented the draft to the Allahabad branch of the Imperial Bank and somebody in that Bank seems to have assumed that “Chaudhri” was a name, and that, therefore, there was a discrepancy in the description of the payee “Chaudhri Joti Prasad” and “Joti Prasad” the endorser. The Allahabad branch sent the draft for some purpose to Saharanpur. Christmas intervened, and eventually it was returned to this Court by the Allahabad branch with the endorsement upon it “first payee’s endorsement irregular”. Eventually, on Friday, the 13th of January, 1928, Joti Prasad attended at, the High Court, intending to arrange matters between himself, the Bank and this Court; but inasmuch as there was another matter pending, namely, the alleged failure of Joti Prasad to pay into Court within due time the costs of translation and printing, the Registrar stood that matter over until the Court had decided the point raised as to the non-payment of the charges for printing and translation.
2. The matter before the Court to-day is the failure of Joti Prasad to pay Rs. 289 70 within the time provided by Section 3(1) of Act No. XXVI of 1920. His Counsel agrees that the six weeks referred to in that section expired on the 30th of December, 1927, but as it happened that the Court was closed on that date, and also on the 1st and 2nd of January, 1928, the payment would have been within time had it been made on the 3rd of January, Counsel on behalf of Joti Prasad states that or the 3rd of January, 1928, Joti Prasad sent the money by telegraphic money order from Saharanpur to Allahabad, and he has produced a document, which we are willing to accept, in which the Allahabad Assistant Post Master states that the telegraphic money order was received at 3-30 P.M. on the 3rd of January. In the ordinary course of business, the Telegraph Office being within five minutes of the High Court, there would have been sufficient time for the money to reach the Court before 5 o’clock, at which time the Court normally closes. The postal officials at Allahabad however did not pay over the money until the succeeding day, the 4th of January. Joti Prasad has undoubtedly a sense of grievance against the Bank who failed to recognise that “Chaudhri” was no part of his name. He also is aggrieved that the money telegraphed by him should not have been paid to the High Court on the day of its receipt. In both of these respects we should have been willing to help Joti Prasad, and to declare that neither of these happenings should prejudice him, but believing as we do that Section 3(1)of Act No. XXVI of 1920 is imperative in its terms, and that no excuse can be accepted by this Court for nonpayment within time and no indulgence given, we must hold that, as regards the payment of printing and translation charges, the amount was tendered beyond the period of six weeks from the date of the certificate. It was certainly tendered considerably more than 150 days from the date of the decree appealed from. Similarly it is probable that we should have had to decide adversely to Joti Presad if the question of the nonpayment of the Rs. 4,000 within due time had been formally before us. Oar attention has been drawn to the cases of Ram Dhan v. Prag Narain 65 Ind. Cas. 249 : 44 A. 216 : 20 A.L.J. 13 : A.I.R. 1922 All. 43, L. Jagmohan Saran v. Sahu Deoki Nandan 84 Ind. Cas. 535 : A.I.R. 1923 All. 572 : L.R. 5 A 40 Civ., and to the note to be found in Jameshar Prasad v. Durga Sahu 30 C.W.N. is (notes). In all these cases this Court took the view that it had no power under any circumstances to extend the time specified either for payment of the Es. 4,000 or the amount required for translation and printing. It will nevertheless be open, to Joti Prasad, if he so pleases, to move their Lordships of the Privy Council to restore to him the certificate which we find ourselves constrained to cancel. We, therefore, declare the certificate granted to Joti Prasad on the 18th of October, 1927, to be revoked.
