1. The last day for payment into Court would admittedly have been the 6th January 1895 but for the fact that on that day the Court was closed. The first question is whether the fact that the Court was then closed entitled the fifth defendant (respondent) to pay the money on the first day thereafter that the Court was open, i.e., on the 8th January. We think he was so entitled. The ease Dabee Rawoot v. Heeramun Muhatoon 8 W.R. O.E. 223 cited by the respondent is a direct authority in favour of this view. The principle on which the rule depends is thus stated in Shooshee Bhusan Rwlro v. Gobind Chunder Roy I.L.R. 18 Cal. 231 : 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 closed--they are entitled to do the act on the first opening day.'
2. We must, therefore, hold that if the money was produced in Court on the 8th January, but was not actually deposited, not from any default of the fifth defendant, but owing to an act of the Court or of its officers the requirements of the decree were satisfied and the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim the sum relinquished. If, on the other hand, it were not so produced, or if its non-payment into the treasury was due to any default of the fifth defendant, the requirements of the decree were not satisfied and the plaintiff is entitled to the sum relinquished.
3. The District Judge has not given a definite finding on the issue above stated. We must ask him to submit a finding thereon within a month from the date of the receipt of this order. Fresh evidence on both sides may, if necessary, be taken.
4. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the finding has been posted up in this Court.
5. [In compliance with the above order the District Judge submitted his finding which was to the effect that the defendant did not produce Rs. 750 in Court on the 8th of January 1895, and that there had been no default on the part of the officials in entering into a credit to him. The appeal having come on for hearing on the 4th of April 1898 his findings were accepted and the order of the District Court was reversed and that of the District Munsif restored.]