Ramaswami, J. - This Civil Revision Petition has been posted before a Bench at the instance of one of us on account of the important practice in procedure involved.

The facts are: An ex parte decree was passed against the second defendant in S.C.S. No. 1852 of 1950 on 19th November, 1952. The second defendant filed I.A. No. 391 of 1952 on 20th November, 1952, to set aside the ex parte decree. No security was furnished along with the application. It was stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was prepared to give security for the decree amount. During the pendency of LA. No. 391 of 1952 the second defendant filed LA. No. 392 of 1952 on 6th December 1952. requesting the Court to accept the security bond. On 19th December 1952, adhesive stamps for eight annas were affixed to a separate sheet of paper and that sheet was attached to security bond. The District Munsif passed orders on 19th December, 1952, that the security was accepted and posted the application for counter-statement and disposal. The plaintiff opposed both the petitions LA. Nos. 391 and 392 of 1952 on the ground that the security bond was not filed and registered within the period of limitation.

The learned District Munsif relying upon the decision in Chattiyelan Kannakurup v. Raman Nayar1, held that it was necessary that a registered bond should be filed within 30 days and that the mere filing of a draft bond was not sufficient compliance with the provision of section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and dismissed the application. Hence this Civil Revision Petition.

Under the proviso to the section 17(1) as it stands now after its amendment in 1935, the applicant for setting aside the ex parte decree or for review of judgment shall and must, at the time of presenting the application, do one of the two things, namely either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or give such security for the performance of the decree as the Court may have directed on a previous application made by him in this behalf. The proviso clearly predicates the existence of an application to be made by an applicant who is not prepared to deposit the decretal amount in cash to ask for the filing of a security as a substitute therefor. If he does not make the previous application, he must deposit the money in full. If he has made it and been successful in getting an order for security instead of depositing the money in full, he may furnish the security which the Court may have previously directed.

The period of limitation for an application to set aside an ex parte decree is 30 days under Article 164 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, does not apply to applications under Order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside an ex parte decree, except in Madras, and hence it is not open to a Court to accept a deposit or security beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the application.

In Madras by a rule framed by the High Court, section 5 of the Limitation Act has been made applicable to applications for setting aside ex parte decrees. But it must be noted that under section 5 all that can be done is to condone the delay for a sufficient reason in making the application under Order 9, rule 13. But where the application is made within time and the deposit is made or security is furnished beyond the prescribed time, section 5 can have no application. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, however, applies to applications contemplated by the present section.

In regard to the interpretation of the proviso as it stood before the amendment and which holds good even under the proviso as it stands now after its amendment in 1935, the Allahabad High Court in the Full Bench decision in Ram Bharose v. Ganga Singh1, laid down the following propositions:

(1) The applicant must present his application within 30 days either accompanied by a cash deposit or with a statement that he is prepared to give security, tendering the proposed security an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document