JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is an application by the Appellants to the Privy Council asking that the time for putting in the sum of Rs. 2,460, the estimated cost of translating, transcribing, indexing and transmitting to the Privy Council, the record of the case, may be extended. The facts are these: On the 12th November the present Petitioners were served through their vakil with an estimate of Rs. 2,460 for the expenses I have mentioned. Under sec. 602 of the CPC six weeks is the period within which the deposit of this amount ought to have been made. It is perfectly true that sec. 602 of the Code only applies to a case where a certificate has been granted by this Court, and not to a case where special leave to appeal has been granted by the Judicial Committee, but it has invariably been the practice in this Court to treat that section as applying to cases where special leave has been granted: it is all we have for our guidance in the matter. 2. The six weeks expired on the 24th December last, but as the Court was closed, and did not reopen until the 2nd January, the applicants have had the benefit of the extended period and ought to have paid in the money on the 2nd January 1907. 3. They made no application to extend the time before the 24th December, as they ought to have done, nor did they make any application on the 2nd January. They make no application until to-day. The question is whether, in these circumstances, we ought to grant the indulgence they now ask. 4. The Judicial Committee has laid down that this Court has the power to extend the time, but that it ought not to do so without some cogent reason (see Burjore and Bhauant Pershad v. Bhagana I. L. R. 10 Cal. 557 (1883). We must consider whether the Petitioners have made out any cogent reason for the extension they ask. 1 am unable to take the view that they have. The only ground is that stated in paragraph 7 of their petition which is as follows: That your Petitioners expected that the said amount of Rs. 2,460 would come to them from their zamindari, but instead of that amount the sum of Rs. 2,000 (two thousand) reached them during the Christmas vacation. 5. The only ground is that stated in paragraph 7 of their petition which is as follows: That your Petitioners expected that the said amount of Rs. 2,460 would come to them from their zamindari, but instead of that amount the sum of Rs. 2,000 (two thousand) reached them during the Christmas vacation. 5. There is no plea of poverty: the applicants knew on the 12th November that they must find the money within six weeks: there is no case of mistake or surprise: and the paragraph I have cited is very vague as to dates. The Petitioners are zemindars, and there is nothing to indicate that if they had given proper directions, they could not have obtained the whole amount from the zamindari. In these circumstances can we say that any cogent reason has been shewn'? I think not. 6. It seems to us that there has been serious delay on the part of the Petitioners, and they have not made out any case which would justify us in extending the time. The application is refused with costs,- two gold mohurs.