CHADURNEDULU SURYANARAYANA Vs. CHATURNEDULU RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one appears for the respondent. I think the hearing of the application was barred by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as the security was not deposited, until after the petition was disposed of. NO doubt in Ramasami V/s. Kurisu 13 M. 178, Parker and Wilkinson, JJ. held that Section 17 is merely directory but they did not decide that the Judge of the Small Cause Court could allow the deposit at any; time. The District Munsif was, in my opinion, clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but inasmuch as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, I should not be inclined to set aside the order in revision. I think, however, that the application was barred by limitation. I agree with the decision in Bimola Soonduree Vassee V/s. Kalee Kishan Mojoomdar 22 W.R. 5, which held that the notice under Section 2

(2.) 8 is a process for enforcing the decree and I think that that process is executed when the notice is served.