JUDGMENT 1. On May 7th, 1898, the Plaintiff sued the Appellant and others on a bond. On July 11th, 1898, an ex parte decree was passed against Defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 in the Court of Small Causes. The decree was transferred to the Court of the Munsif for execution. On April 29th, 1902, the property was sold and purchased by the Plaintiff at the execution sale. On May 26th the Defendant No. 1 applied in the Court of the Munsif for leave to deposit the amount of the decree and 5 per cent. on the purchase money under sec. 310A, C. P. C., and deposited the amount on May 28th. On the 29th of May he also put in a petition in the Court of Small Causes praying under sec. 108, C. P. C., that the ex parte decree might be set aside and the case reheard. On the 31st May he also put in a petition in the Munsif a Court praying that the money he had deposited under sec. 310A might be retained in Court pending the hearing of the application under sec. 108. The Judge of the Small Cause Court refused the application under sec. 108 on the ground that the deposit made in the Court of the Munsif under sec. 310A was not in compliance with sec. 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The Defendant No. 1 appealed but the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, being of opinion that no appeal lay, dismissed the appeal. 2. The Munsif on the authority of Musst. Shakoti v. Jotindra Mohan Tagore 1 C. W. N. 132 (1896) refused the application under see, 310A on the ground that, inasmuch as the judgment-debtor petitioned that the money paid in should not be paid out until the hearing of the application under sec. 108, the deposit was not such a deposit as was contemplated by sec. 310A. 3. On appeal this order of the Munsif was affirmed by the District Judge. 4. Against this order of the District Judge, this appeal has been preferred to this Court and rules have been granted calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Small Cause Court Judge refusing the application under sec. 108, and that of the Munsif refusing to stay the sale under sec. 310A should not be set aside. 5. 108, and that of the Munsif refusing to stay the sale under sec. 310A should not be set aside. 5. We do not think the Munsif was right. It appears that the money was duly deposited within 30 days of the sale. The petition that the money might be kept in Court was filed after the deposit had been made. It was a petition which it was open to the Munsif to refuse. We fail to see on what principle a petition put in after the money had been duly deposited can be said to make the deposit invalid under sec. 310A. In the case of Musst. Shakoti v. Jotindra Mohon Tagore 1 C. W. N. 132 (1896), the judgment-debtor in his application under sec. 310A prayed that the money should be kept in deposit until the disposal of the appeal. The money, therefore, could only be received on the condition expressed in the application. Here the money was duly deposited and the petition which might have been refused was made later. 6. We therefore make the Rule No. 3374 absolute with costs. 7. The next question is as to whether the Small Cause Court Judge should have refused the application under sec. 108 on the ground that the provisions of sec. 17 of the Small Cause Court Act had not been complied with. 8. In support of the rule, it is urged that, at the time the application under sec. 108 was made, there had been deposited in the Munsif a Court a sum exceeding that which the judgment-debtor was liable to pay under the decree ; that this was an ample security for the performance of the decree, and that the Small Cause Court Judge ought to have heard and disposed of the application under sec. 108 according to law. On the other hand, it is contended that the applicant was debarred from making an application to have the sale set aside under sec. 310A unless he surrendered his right to question the decree under sec. 108 or that, in any case, he was not only bound to deposit the amount required under sec. 310A but to deposit the full decretal amount also in the Small Cause Court before his application under sec. 108 could be entertained. 9. 310A unless he surrendered his right to question the decree under sec. 108 or that, in any case, he was not only bound to deposit the amount required under sec. 310A but to deposit the full decretal amount also in the Small Cause Court before his application under sec. 108 could be entertained. 9. This argument involves the proposition that the judgment-debtor must deposit double the amount for which he is liable if he desires to have the sale set aside and question the decree. We do not think the sections should be so construed as to inflict on a judgment-debtor the hardship of depositing double the sum he is liable to pay. We think the learned Small Cause Court Judge ought to have held that the deposit of the decretal amount and damages was a sufficient security for the performance of the decree within sec. 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act and should have heard the application under sec. 108 on its merits. 10. Rule No. 3156 will, therefore, also be made absolute with costs. 11. As regards the appeal (No. 484), it was not pressed, as no appeal lay and the question involved in the appeal have been disposed of by our decision in the rules. The appeal will, therefore, stand dismissed. We assess the hearing fee in the rules at three gold mohurs in each case.