Judgment :- 1. These two appeals were heard together as the questions arising for decision are common. 2. The appellant in A.S. 306 of 1960 and the appellant in A. S.308 of 1960 were judgment-debtors in two suits. They applied for discharging the respective debts under S.4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Act 31 of 1958. The applications were dismissed on the ground that there was default in depositing the second instalment on the due date; hence these appeals. 3. The appellants challenged the orders under appeal broadly on the ground that the applications for extension of time to deposit the amount for the second instalment should have been allowed. It was also urged that the decision reported in 1960 KLT. 1069 does not lay down the law correctly. We do not consider it necessary to canvass the correctness of the said decision as the applications for extension have to be dismissed even if the court has power to extend the time. The only ground stated in the applications was that the appellant was not able to get money in time. These applications for extension of time were filed nearly two months after the default and there was no attempt to deposit the amounts at least along with the applications. After waiting for two months the appellant applied for further extension of time by 3 months. The power given to the Court to extend the time under S.8 is not to be exercised where the only reason is what is alleged here, viz , financial difficulty. 4. There is yet another ground taken in A.S. No. 306. It is contended that there was an application for amending the petition in respect of the admitted amount, that according to that there was excess amount deposited for the first instalment and that the deficiency for making up the second instalment on the revised basis was paid on 26-11-59. The application for amendment has not been allowed at that time so that the admitted amount had to be calculated on the basis of the admissions in the petition filed on 9-1-1959. 5. As matters now stand it cannot be said that there was no default in the payment of instalments and the only course open for the court under S.8 is to dismiss the petitions. 5. As matters now stand it cannot be said that there was no default in the payment of instalments and the only course open for the court under S.8 is to dismiss the petitions. It was urged that in view of the amendment of S.4 of Act 31 of 58 by Act 2 of 1961, the right of the appellant under S.4 may be left intact. We consider this request reasonable and hold that the decision of these appeals will not prejudice the appellant's right to move afresh for such relief as they may be entitled to under S.4. 6. Subject to this clarification we confirm the orders under appeal and dismiss the appeals with costs.