( 1 ) THIS is a judgment-debtors application in revision against an order dismissing his objections under Rule 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. The matter come up before a learned single Judge of this court who was of the opinion that the order of dismissal, based as it was on the proviso to Rule 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. added by this Court, had been wrongly interpreted by the Civil Judge. The attention of the learned Single Judge was invited to a decision of this Court in Bhawan Ram v. Kunj Behari Lal, 1960 All LJ 578 : (AIR 1962 All 42) in which it was held that the proviso introduced by this Court to Rule 90 of Order XXI bars entertaining an objection altogether if the requirements of the proviso are not complied with by the time up to which the objection can be legally entertained and that the objection cannot thereafter be validly made nor can the security deposit be accepted The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the view taken by this court in Bhawan Rams case 1960 All LJ 578 : (AIR 1982 All 42) was not sound. On his reference the matter was referred to the Division Bench.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this application in revision are as follows. There was a