A deposit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act must be made within the stipulated time for compliance, but sufficiency of cause must also be assessed before setting aside an ex parte decree.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam in I. A. No. 52/73 in S. C. 31/73.

2. Two questions of law require consideration in this revision petition. They are: (1) Whether it is necessary under the proviso to S.17 (1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') that deposit of decretal amount should be made along with the application presented for setting aside the ex parte decree; and (2) whether it is not necessary for the court to give a finding on the question of sufficiency of cause for setting aside the ex parte decree under S.17 (1) of the Act.

3. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed ex parte decree on 8-10-1973 against the respondent herein. The respondents filed I. A. No. 52 of 1973 for setting aside the ex parte decree on 16-10-1973. He also applied for challan for Rs. 400/- on 18-10-1973 and the challan was given by the court to the respondent. But the respondent did not deposit the amount of Rs. 400/- before the order in I. A. 52/73 was passed. He, however, deposited the said amount before the expiry of 30 days from 8-10-1973. Taking into consideration the amount deposited by the respondent before the expiry of 30 days from 8-10-1973 the learned Additional Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that there was substantial compliance with the provisions of law. He, therefore, allowed the petition and set aside the ex parte decree.

4. Aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff in the suit, who was the respondent in I. A. 52/73, filed this revision petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent herein has not deposited the decretal amount at the time of presenting his application as required under the proviso to S.17 (1) of the Act. He further contends that the lower Court has not given finding whether there was sufficient cause which prevented the respondent herein from appearing before the lower court on the date when the matter was posted for hearing and such a finding is necessary in view of S.17 (1) of the Act. He, therefore, contends that as the lower Court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of S.17 (1) on both the aspects, the order passed by the lower Court allowing I. A. 52/73 is erroneous and contrary to law. Hence he contends that the revision petition should be allowed and the order passed by the lower Court should be set aside.

6. There is no dispute that the amount of Rs. 400/- was deposited before the expiry of thirty days from 8-10-1973, though the said amount was not deposited at the time when the application was presented. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is mandatory under the proviso to S.17 (1) of the Act to deposit the amount along with the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

7. I do not think that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct.

8. In order to comply with the first part of the proviso to S.17 (1) of the Act, it is not necessary that the deposit should be made at the time of presenting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is sufficient if the deposit is made within the time allowed by law for setting aside the ex parte decree. For this, I gain support from the rulings in Tarachand v. Daurappa , AIR 1943 Bom. 237 and Hiralal v. Ramkumar and Sons , AIR 1951 Punj (Simla) 230. In both the cases, learned Judges considered the question whether the first part of the proviso to S.17 (1) was not complied with if the deposit was made before the expiry of thirty days, even though it was not deposited at the time of presentin