036-NLR-NLR-V-59-M.-CHETTIAH-Appellant-and-B.-V.-SELVANAYAGAM-Respondent.pdf
WEERASOORIYA, J.—Chelliah v. Selvanayagam
119
1957Present : Weerasooriya, J., and Sinnetamby, J.■
M. CHELLIAH, Appellant-, and 33. V. SELVANAYAGAM, RespondentS. C. 470—D. C. Jaffna, S3 M■
Appeal—Tendering security for costs of appeal—Time limit—Hypothecation of cashsecurity—Civil Procedure Code-, ss. 75G (/), 757.__ '
Wlioro extension of t-imo is allowed by Court beyond tho poriod specified insection 756 (1) of tho Civil Procedure Code for tendering security for costs of" – appeal, and cash in the amount ordered is accordingly deposited, failure tohypothecate tho sum of money in terms of section 757 within the extendedtime is a fatal irregularity.'
Quaere, whether tho Court can extend the time for tendering security forcosts of appeal beyond tho poriod spoeifiod in section 756 (l)'of the CivilProcedure Codo..*■~-
A.-;v
IxPPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna.
C. Ranganalhan, for the plaintiff-appellant.5
Nagendra, for the defendant-respondent.
3larch 6, 1957. Weerasooriya, J.—1-
Mr. iSTagendra who appears for the defendant-respondent takes thopreliminary objection that the appellant has failed to tender securityfor costs of appeal within the period of 20 days specified in section 756 (1)of the Civil Procedure Code.
5 (1951) 2 A. E. R. 613.
{1891) 1 Q. B. 402.
120WRERAS OORlYA, 3.—Chelliati 'J). Selvahayagabi ■_
The petition of appeal vvas lodged on the 18th of- !Sfovembeiy l955,and the Court fixed security for costs at Rs. 100 iri cash or Rs. 200. in.immovable property. _ "On the 29th November, 1955, the proctor for theplaintiff-appellant filed a security bond hypothecating certain immovable,property but the proctor for the respondent having objected to,. thesecurity, the Court on the 3rd July, 1956, ordered that securityin cashbe deposited on the 17 th July, 1956. At the date of that order.the periodspecified in section 756 (1) had long expired. Rut even if the appellantcan rely on that order as one giving him a further extension of time forfurnishing security till the -17th July, 1956, despite the fact that thestatutory period for doing so had already elapsed, it does riot avail himsince, although he deposited cash Rs. 100 on the 17th July, 1956, hefailed to hypothecate that sum of money by bond in terms of section 757of the Civil Procedure Code until the following day. That omission wouldalso be fatal to this appeal.•,:
The objection taken by Mr. Nagendra is sustained and the appealis rejected with costs.•■
Sinnetamby, J.—I agree.
Appeal rejected.