JUDGMENT

Gwyer, C.J. - This is an application under Order 37, Federal Court Rules, for leave to be excused from compliance with the requirements of certain of the rules. The applicants were the defendants in the proceedings below and desire to appeal to the Federal Court from a decree obtained against them for a substantial amount in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, and upheld on appeal (with certain modifications) by the High Court at Patna on 19th December 1938. As in other cases which have recently been before this Court, the defendants had relied upon provisions of the Bihar Money-lenders Act, 1938, but the High Court, following an earlier decision of their own, held that those provisions were void as being repugnant to an existing Indian law. A certificate under Section 205(1), Constitution Act, was granted; and, the formal decree having been drawn up on 13th March 1939, the applicants petitioned the High Court to have their appeal to this Court "admitted" under the provisions of Order 45, Civil P.C., which has been extended, with appropriate modifications and adaptations, to appeals to the Federal Court by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937. Order 45, Rule 7, as adapted, requires an appellant (inter alia), before his appeal can be "admitted", to deposit within a specified period the amount required to defray the expense of printing the record of the suit. In the present case the sum required (Rs. 253-3-0) had not been deposited before 27th May 1939, the date on which the period expired. On 1st September the applicants filed an application for an extension of the time for making the deposit, alleging absence of means as a reason for the delay. A Full Bench of the High Court See AIR 1939 Pat 667 (FB) heard this application with two others of the same kind, and by a majority held that they had power to extend the time. In the other two cases an extension was granted, but in the case of the present applicants it was refused on the ground that no application had been made until long after the time for making the deposit had expired and no explanation given for the delay except a vague statement that there was difficulty in obtaining She money.

2. In these circumstances the applicants applied ex parte to this Court asking to be "excused from compliance with the rules of the Federal Court" and for an enlargement of time so that they might take steps to get the records transmitted to the Federal Court. It appeared to us that an important question was raised by the application and we therefore directed that the application should be renewed after notice had been given to the respondents. We pointed out how ever that we had no power to entertain any appeal from the refusal of the High Court to extend the time for receiving the deposit, and that, even if we had, we should be slow to interfere with the exercise by she High Court of its discretion in a matter of this kind. We also refused to entertain any application which did not specify the rules from the requirements of which the applicants desired to be excused; and counsel then stated that he asked to be excused from compliance with the requirements of Order 10, Rules 1, 2 and 3. By a regrettable error on the part of officers of the Court the amended petition served upon the respondents was made to appear as an application under Order 37, Rules 1, 2 and 3, instead of an application to be excused from compliance with Order 10, Rules 1, 2 and 3. No point however was made of this at the subsequent hearing and neither counsel for the respondents nor anyone else was left in any doubt as to the precise nature of the application.

3. When the application was heard on 14th February, the respondents were also represented. Counsel for the applicants gave an explanation of the delay in making the deposit which was not wholly consistent with the account apparently given to the High Court, and I think it right to remind litigants that, if they ask for