SHARIF Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard Sri Triloki Nath in support of the present revision, it appears to me that the view contended for by him cannot be accepted. His submission is that an application for being permitted to file security would still be in accordance with the requirement of the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act even if such an application is made at or before the time when the application for setting aside an ex -parte decree in a small cause comes up for orders before the court. The construction suggested, however, cannot be accepted in view of the clear language in which the proviso is cast. In material part it provides that at the time of presenting his application for an order to set aside a decree passed ex -parte, the applicant has, either to deposit the amount in court due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment or give security for performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment which he may be permitted by the court to furnish on a previous application made by him. The applicant, seeking permission to file security in lieu of the deposit of the amount in cash, has to make an application prior to the time when he presents his application for setting aside the ex -parte decree. The language of the proviso is clear in this respect.

(2.) ON admitted facts of the case that the application seeking permission of the court for filing security instead of making deposit in cash was made long after the presentation by the applicant of his application to set aside the ex -parte decree, it is clear that the view taken by the courts below was right.