JUDGMENT

1. The facts out of which the two appeals before us arise are stated in the referring order of the 22nd June 1923. In substance they amount to this: by an appellate decree, the plaintiff in two pre-emption cases was given one month from the 27th of September 1921 within which to deposit certain money, if he desired to obtain the benefit of the decrees in his favour. The Civil Courts closed for the vacation in that year on the 30th of September and re-opened on the 4th of November. On that date the successful plaintiff made the deposit required by the decree. The Courts below have held that it was too late, more than thirty days having elapsed since the 27th of September 1921. There was authority of this Court for the view thus adopted. This is to be found in the case of Hirday Narain v. Alam Singh 48 Ind. Cas. 353 : 41 A.A. 471 : 16 A.L.J. 892. The attention of the Courts below was not drawn to the fact that since the decision above referred to a Bench of this Court, in the case of Reoti Ram v. Sita Ram 60 Ind. Cas. 894 : 19 A.L.J. 49, had arrived at a different conclusion. The matter has been referred to a Full Bench in order that these conflicting decisions may be re-considered. The position is so far an unfortunate one that in Reoti Ram's case 60 Ind. Cas. 894 : 19 A.L.J. 49, the attention of the Bench was not called to the decision in Hirday Narain's case 48 Ind. Cas. 353 : 41 A.A. 471 : 16 A.L.J. 892, while, on the other hand, the decision in Reoti Ram's case 60 Ind. Cas. 894 : 19 A.L.J. 49 is founded upon an older decision of this Court which was not laid before the Bench which decided Hirday Narain's case 48 Ind. Cas. 353 : 41 A.A. 471 : 16 A.L.J. 892. The older decision in question is the case of Debi Din Rai v. Muhammad Ali 3 A. 850 : A.W.N. (1881) 100 : 2 Ind. Dec. 573. We now find, moreover, that another Bench of this Court, in the case of Bisheshar Naik v. Said-ud-din A.W.N. (1884) 217 had held a deposit made under circumstances precisely similar to those which we are now considering to have been made in time. The question for determination is whether the deposit made by the plaintiff Muhammad Jan was or was not within time under the terms of the decree. We have no desire to discuss any question as to the powers of the Court to extend that time; nor do we hold that the case falls within the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. As regards the decisions of this Court there is clearly a preponderance of authority in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The current of authority is broken only by the decision in Hirday Narain's case 48 Ind. Cas. 353 : 41 A.A. 471 : 16 A.L.J. 892. The facts in that case were to this extent peculiar, that the deposit made by the plaintiff was not made actually on the first possible day after the reopening of the Courts, but one day later. It is true that a point was made in argument of the fact that, on the first available day, the Treasury where the deposit was required to be made was only open for one hour; but we do not know how far this circumstance may have affected the decision of the Hon'ble Judges. There are two cases of other High Courts which are, in our opinion, in point. In the case of Shooshi Bhushan Rudro v. Gobind Chandar Roy 18 C. 231 : 9 Ind. Dec. 154 the Calcutta High Court, relying upon certain English cases, made the following observations:

The broad principle there laid down is that, although the parties themselves cannot extend the time for doing an act in Court, yet if the delay is caused, not by any act of their own, but by some act of the Court itself, such as the fact of the Court being olosed, they are entitled to do the act on the first opening day.

2. They go on to remark that this principle had bean affirmed in older cases of the same Court.

3. The same principle was laid down by another Bench of the same Court in the case of Peary Mohan v. Ananda Charan 18 C. 631 : 9 Ind. Dec. 421, in which again two older cases are referred to. We desire