Vivian Bose, J—The applicant before me obtained an ex parte decree against one Jagannath in the Court of Small Causes at Betul on 20th December 1932. The judgment-debtor thereupon applied to have the ex parte decree set aside under S. 17(1), Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and produced the non-applicant as a surety. The ex parte decree was set aside and after trial a fresh decree was passed. The applicant now applies in execution under S. 145, Civil. P.C., against the non-applicant surety. The lower Court holds that the non-applicant is not liable because under the terms of the surety bond he stood surety only till the delivery of judgment. In my opinion this is an impossible construction of the bond. As there is some doubt about the translation, I give the original words so fax as they are material. They are: ''Ye jamanat ta faisla mukhadama fee deta ho.'' If there is any ambiguity in their meaning, then, as the Judges of the Calcutta High Court point out in Mohendranath Banerji v. Satishchandra, 1934 AIR(Cal) 569, quoting a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council, the bond must be construed in the light of the order directing the security to be given. As the o