Davies, J.

1. The respondents were served with notice of the appeal within the extended time allowed by a Bench of this Court, but the respondents allege that the time should not have been extended without notice to them, or at any rate that they should now be permitted to urge their objections to the extension. I am of opinion that no notice was necessary in the first instance, but as the order extending the time was passed ex parte, I think the respondents are now entitled to object thereto.

2. As in my opinion, however, the appeal against the order must, under Section 169 of the Indian Companys Act, 1882, itself be filed within three weeks of the date of the order at the very latest, it makes it practically impossible to have the notice of the appeal also served within that time. It follows that the Court could not reasonably have refused the extension applied for. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled. On the merits, I consider the Judge was right in dismissing the application, for the charges therein made are too vague, and there is nothing tangible to go upon. Further, there is no distinct averment of any loss. This appeal is therefore dismissed with two sets