JUDGMENT R. K. DASH, J. — A short, but interesting question, arises in this case is whether the appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendant in a money decree can be dismissed at the threshold if he fails to deposit the decretal amount in the appellate Court. 2. The plaintiff, respondent herein, by filing this Misc. Case under Order 41, Rule 1(3), CPC has prayed for a direction to the defendant - appellant to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 16,450/- and on his failure to deposit the same, the appeal filed by him be dismissed. 3. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41, CPC which was brought into statute book by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976 reads thus : “(3) Where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit.” A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly goes to show that it is incumbent upon the appellant, who has challenged a money decree passed against him, to deposit the decretal amount or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court directs, within the time stipulated by the Court. But, however, the Legislature is silent as to the consequences if no such deposit or furnishing security is made, inasmuch as the statute does not provide that on failure of the appellant in carrying out the order of the Court, the appeal shall be dismissed. Needless to say that the duty of a Court is to interpret the law and apply the same to the facts and circumstances of a case. But it is not entitled to usurp legislative function under the disguise of interpretation. As enactment being the will of the Legislature, the paramount rule of interpretation which overrides all others is that a statute is to be expanded ‘according to the intent of them that make it the will of the Legislature is the supreme law of the land and demands perfect obedience’. ‘Such power is never exercised’, said Marshall, CJ. of the United States ‘for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judges always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature, in other words, to the will of law’. (See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statute). ‘Such power is never exercised’, said Marshall, CJ. of the United States ‘for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judges always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature, in other words, to the will of law’. (See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statute). The Legislature in the Amendment Act has not provided any default clause that on the failure of the appellant for not complying with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41, CPC, the Court can dismiss the appeal without going to its merit. This observa¬tion of mine is reinforced if a reference is made to the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Bill, 1974 as introduced in Parliament, the relevant portion of which is extracted below : “(3) Where the appeal is against an order made in execution of a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect there¬of as the Court may think fit; (ii) in Rule 3, after Sub-rule (1), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely : (1A) Where the appellant fails to make deposit or furnish security specified in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, the Court shall reject the memorandum of appeal.....” The Bill was referred to the Joint Committee for consideration which submitted its report in Paragraph 65 in the following words : “65. Clause 87 (original Clause 90)- (i) The Committee note that under the proposed new Sub-rule (1A) of Rule 3 in Order XLI, if the appellant fails either to deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or to furnish security for such amount, the memorandum of appeal shall be rejected. The Committee feel that such a provision will deprive a judgment-debtor having a good case, to pursue the appeal on account of his inability to deposit the disputed amount or to furnish security for such amount. The Committee are, therefore, of the opinion that in order to see that justice is done to both the parties, the proposed sub-rule might be amended in such a way that neither the judg¬ment-debtor is deprived of his right to pursue the appeal nor the decree-holder is deprived of the remedy. The Committee are, therefore, of the opinion that in order to see that justice is done to both the parties, the proposed sub-rule might be amended in such a way that neither the judg¬ment-debtor is deprived of his right to pursue the appeal nor the decree-holder is deprived of the remedy. Proposed Sub-rule (1A) has been amended to provide that stay of execution of the decree will not be granted unless the deposit is made or security is furnished and has been transposed as Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5.” In view of the aforesaid report of the Joint Committee Sub-rule (1A) was omitted from the Act. 4. From the above it appears that at the outset it was proposed to introduce a provision that if the appellant fails to deposit the amount or furnish the security, as the case may be, the Court shall reject the memorandum of appeal, but the Legisla¬ture accepted the suggestion of the Joint Committee and omitted the said Sub-rule (1A) while bringing out the amendment. From this it is deducible that the intention of the Legislature was not to make the deposit of the decretal amount or furnishing of the security a condition precedent for filing an appeal. Therefore, the appellate Court cannot dismiss the appeal at the initial stage if its direction as contained in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41, CPC is not complied with by the appellant. 5. In view of discussions made above, the petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent merits no consideration which is accord¬ingly dismissed. Misc. Case dismissed.