( 1 ) THIS is an application against an order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, rejecting an application for the setting aside of an ex parte decree,

( 2 ) AN ex parte decree was passed against the applicant on 20-1-1949. On 4-2-1949 the applicant made an application in which the prayer was as follows: "it is, therefore, prayed that the Court be pleased, after directing the applicant if it approves of the security bond regarding its sufficiency or otherwise, to restore the case to its original number so that the defendant may contest the claim which is entirely incorrect. "

( 3 ) ALONG with the application the draft of a security bond was filed. On the same date the Court passed the following order: "allowed to file security. Ask for plaintiffs objection if any. " accordingly, on 19-2-1949, the applicant filed a security bond in terms of the draft submitted by him. Notice was then issued upon the application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff appeared he objected to the security bond as also to the application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree on the ground that permission to furnish security in respect of the decretal amount had not been obtained prior to the making of the application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree, and the security bond also had not been filed along with the application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree, as required by Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The lower Court gave effect to the plaintiffs objection and dismissed the application on the sole ground that it was not maintainable. Against this order the applicant has come up in revision to this Court.

( 4 ) THE contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that although his application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree and for permission to furnish security in respect of the decretal amount was written on one piece of paper, in fact, they were two applications and since he had asked for the permission of the Court to allow him to furnish security as the first prayer in his application and had asked the Court to set aside the ex parte decree only after his first prayer were granted, it should be deemed that he had made the application for direction to furnish security prior to his application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree. His submission further is that although he furnished the security bond on 9-2-1949 it should be deemed that he had substantially complied with the provisions of Section 17, and, that, therefore, his application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree should have been allowed.

( 5 ) SECTION 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was amended by Act IX [9] of 1935. Before the amendment it stood as follows :

"the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small causes in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suit. Provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte or for a review of judgment shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in Court the amount due from him under the decree of in "pursuance of the judgment, or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may direct. " after the amendment the words underlined (here italicised) above have been deleted and in their place the following words have been substituted : "give such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed. "

( 6 ) BOTH before the amendment as well as after it, the section required one or two things to be done in order that an application for the setting aside of an ex parte decree may be competently made. He must, at the tim