( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against an order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court. Moradabad, dismissing an application for setting aside an ex parte decree. The ex parte decree in question was passed by that Court on 2-6-1953. On 6-7-1953, the defendant applicant moved an application for a direction from the Court permitting him to furnish security through a personal surety bond for the entire decretal amount. At the same time, he presented an application for setting aside the ex parte decree supported by an affidavit as also a personal surety bond for the entire decretal amount. On 9-7-1953, the Court made an order "allowed" on the application of the applicant to permit him to furnish security in the form of a personal surety bond. On the 14th of July, the applicant deposited Rs. 9/- and odd in cash in the court apprehending that the surety bond furnished by him may not be considered as covering the entire decretal amount which was in excess of Rs. 1000/- to that extent After that deposit, the security furnished was verified and was finally accepted by the court. Subsequently, the plaintiff-opposite party objected to the maintainability of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This objection was accepted by the learned Judge, small Cause Court, and the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

( 2 ) THE revision came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court who felt that the question relating to the interpretation of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts act was an important question of law which should be considered by a Division Bench and consequently, the case has come up before us for decision.

( 3 ) IN deciding this revision, the point, that has to be kept in view, is that, so far as the applicant is concerned, he at least did within the period of limitation all that he was required to do in order to present the application for setting aside the ex parte decree so as to make it proper and maintainable. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree had to be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the ex parte decree. That date fell within the civil court vacation when the Small Cause Court was closed. The vacation was followed by a Sunday which fell on 5-7-1953. and the first working day after the vacation was 6-7-1953. On that day, the applicant moved the application seeking a direction from the court to permit him to furnish security in the form of a personal surety bond. Further, on the same day, he moved an application praying that the ex parte decree be set aside and he also at the same time furnished a surety bond. Thus all that he was required to do was done by him. The court, however, did not on that day pass orders on any of the applications and thus omitted to make a direction either permitting the applicant to furnish security or, in the alternative, rejecting his prayer so as to leave no option to him except to deposit the decretal amount in cash witbin the period of limitation. Therefore, the applicant remained in suspense and it was after the period of limitation had expired that the court, on 9-7-1953, passed orders permitting the applicant to furnish security in the form of a personal surety bond. It has been urged before us that, under the proviso to Section 17, it was necessary that the applicant should not only have made the application for a direction from the court to be permitted to furnish security hut should also have obtained such a direction from the court before presenting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree so that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree could not have been presented validly after 6-7-1953, and, since up to that da