Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to extend the time 1454 for furnishing security for costs of the respondents under O. 45, R. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The alcutta High Court has held that it had no jurisdiction to extend time as prayed for by the appellants, and so the certificate already granted by it to the appellants to appeal to this Court against its own decree has been cancelled. The order cancelling the said certificate has given rise to this appeal by special leave; and so the only question which we are called upon to consider is one of construing O. 45, R. 7 of the Code as well as O. XII, R. 3 of the SC Rules.

2. The relevant facts leading to the present controversy are not in dispute. The appellants had instituted a suit (No. 73 of 1944) in the First Additional Court of the Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas against the six respondents. 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. The learned trial judge decreed the suit on March 20, 1948