MANIKLAL VARMA Vs. KHUSHAL MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The order in this application will govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 276 of 1932, Chaudhri Maniklal v. Fulla and Ors.

(2.) THE Judge, Small Cause Court, dismissed an application for review, on the ground that it was not accompanied by a deposit. In Chandulal v. Uttamchand AIR 1930 Nag 137 it was held that the proviso to Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, was mandatory and give the applicant no option to make the necessary deposit or give security at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. But the report of the case shows clearly that security was given on 23rd June 1928 when the application was barred by time. The Judge had not to consider, and did not consider, whether the application would be considered to have been made on the date when the security was given. It seems to me that an applicant when giving security may be considered to ask that an application not effectively presented before that date should be considered to have been presented on that date. This view was taken in Assail Mohamed Sahib v. Rahim Sahib AIR 1920 Mad 562, a ruling on which Subhedar, A. J. C., relies in Chandulal v. Uttamchand AIR 1930 Nag 137. I am not referred to any decision to the contrary. On this view the application was presented, with a deposit, in time.