JUDGMENT

Dalal, J C - The Subordinate Judge of Barabanki dismissed the application of Mt. Sitaba for setting aside an ex parte decree against her and for re-heating on the ground that security for the performance of the decree was given more than a month after the decree was passed. The decree was passed while he was exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. Under Section 17, proviso, of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act an application for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte has to be accompanied by a deposit in Court of the amount of the decree or security for its performance. When the application was presented on 28th July 1924 no money was deposited, nor security given. The Court ordered that first of all (awalan) security should bo given and issued notice for the hearing of the application on the 27th September. The security was not filed till the 15th of September. No time was fixed by that Court but the words clearly indicate that the applicant was desired to file security within a reasonable time. Thirty days period of limitation will appear to be a reasonable time and the security was filed more than two weeks after the expiry of such time. The lower Court is mistaken in thinking that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application like the present. That Court has not granted any indulgence and not extended the time, in reality it has no jurisdiction to do so.

2. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court has decided that the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act are mandatory but are sufficiently complied with by satisfying the requirements of the section before the time prescribed for such application in the Limitation Act has elapsed.

3. It is argued here that this decision is in conflict with a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Raghunandan v. Badal [1900] 3 O.C. 396. This is not correct. The judgment in the Bench case of this Court indicates that the applicant was ready to deposit the decretal amount on the day the application was filed but the Court refused to accept it. Such is not the case here, nor were the facts of a Civil Revision No. 75 of 1922 decided by the learned Judicial Commissioner similar: Sita Ram v. Lalta. In this case the Court specifically granted and fixed a date for the deposit. When the deposit was made by the date fixed it was held by this Court to be sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. In the present case no time was fixed arid the Court by its order implied that the deposit was to be made as early as possible.

4. There are no special circumstances in this case and there is no reason why the deposit should be accepted when made after the period of limitation.

5. I dismiss this application but make no order as to costs.