Courtney-Terrell, C.J.This is an application by an appellant to His Majesty in Council for leave under Order XLV, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, to furnish security in a form other than cash or Government securities and, furthermore, for an extension of time for filing such security as the Court may direct. The appellant makes out a case of hardship which might come within the terms of the proviso to the rule but the question remains whether he is entitled either to an extension of time or to make the application at this time. Now the decree from which the appeal is lodged was dated 8th June, 1928. Leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted on 30th January, 1929, and this is 12th March, 1929. The respondent raises two objections to this application apart from the merits as regards the question of hardship. He says, firstly, that the time within which the proposed security must be lodged is limited to one of two alternative dates. It must either be lodged within 150 days from the date of the decree or it must be lodged within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate, whichever is the later date. Order Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, in its earlier form read thus:

Where the certificate is granted be applicant shall within six months from the date of the decree complained of, or with six weeks from the date of the grant i the certificate, whichever is the later furnish security. The Legislature ha amended that enactment and has cut down the period of six months to "90 days or such further period not exceeding 60 days as the Court may upon cause shown allow." It has left undisturbed the period of "six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate." We have been referred to the case of Burjore v. Bhagana 10 C. 557 : 11 I.A. 7 : 4 Sar.P.C.J. 498 : & Jackeons P.O. No. 76 (P.C.), which is a decision of the Privy Council upon the rules as it stood before amendment and in that case the Privy Council took the view that notwithstanding the imperative form of the rule, that is to say, the words "shall within six months," it was directory only, and that it was open to the Court upon proper cause being shown to extend that period. But the effect of the amendment being to cut down the period of six months to 90 days and to cut down also the Courts discretion to grant an extension of that period to a further period of 60 days, does, in my opinion, lead to the necessary implication that the period of "six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate" is rigid and is not to be extended. Therefore, the ruling of the Privy Council upon the old rule no longer has any application. This view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Dhan v. Prag Narain 65 Ind. Cas. 249 : 44 A. 216 : 20 A.L.J. 13 : A.I. 1922 All. 43, and by this Court in the case of Ramani Ranjan Bilas Upadhya v. Durga Datt 105 Ind. Cas. 585 : 9 P.L.T. 305 : A.I.R 330 A.I. Pat. . : 1927 Pat. 330 . Therefore, no extension can be granted.

2. The power to allow the appellant to furnish security in a form other than cash or Government security was under the old rule general, because the wording was "shall (a) furnish security for the cost of the respondent." The new rule, how ever, states that the security must be furnished in cash or Government securities and ends with a proviso as follows:

Provided that the Court at the (sic) of granting the certificate may after hearing any opposite party who appears or on the ground of special hardship that some other form of security may be furnished.

3. Having regard to the express terms of he amended rule which stipulate that he security must be furnished in cash or Government securities and the limited terms of the proviso, in my opinion, the Court is only empowered to apply the proviso if the application is made at the time granting the certificate. Therefore, this application is out of time. It should have been made at the time when the certificate was applied for and the alternative form of security which it is requested may be permitted cannot be allowed. If the appellant is able to furnish his security in cash on or before the 15th, he will be within the time of six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate and will be able to prosecute his appeal inasmuch as 13th and 14th March are holidays. The application is rejected with costs. Hearing-fee one gold mohur.

Macpherson, J.

4. I agree.