JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. This is an application for the revision of an order made by the Munsif of Tilhar in the exercise of his powers as a Judge of a Court of Small Causes refusing the application of the applicant before us for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte against him. It appears that a suit was brought against the applicant for money and was decreed ex parte in 1902. On the 8th of February, 1905, the property of the applicant, defendant, was attached in execution of the decree. On the 18th of March, 1905, he presented a petition under section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the ex parte decree set aside, but at the time of presenting the application he did not, as required by section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, either deposit in Court the amount due from him under the decree or give security for performance of the decree. The 25th of March was fixed for the hearing of the application. On that date the plaintiff, opposite party, objected to the hearing of the application on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the requirements of the second paragraph of section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. Thereupon, on the same date, namely, the 25th of March, 1905, the applicant deposited the amount of the decree. The Court, however, dismissed his application holding that on the date on which the deposit was made, the application was beyond time. The question which we have to consider in this case is whether the provisions of section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act are mandatory or merely directory, and whether it was necessary to deposit the amount of the decree at the time of presentation of the application to set aside the ex parte decree. We are of opinion that the provisions of the section are mandatory. We are of opinion that the provisions of the section are mandatory. The section runs thus: “An applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte shall, at the time of presenting his application either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or*** give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree*** as the Court may direct.” We think that the meaning of the section is that the applicant has the option either to deposit the amount of the decree in cash or give security. But if he elects to adopt the latter course, the security must be to the satisfaction of the Court and subject to the Court's directions. In either case it is incumbent upon him at the time of presenting his application either to deposit the amount of the decree or give security for its due performance in manner provided by the Act. We should be ignoring the clear intention of the legislature as expressed in the section, were we to hold that it is optional with the applicant to deposit the amount of the decree or give security at any subsequent stage. 2. This view of the section was taken by the Calcutta High Court in Jogi Ahir v. Bishen Dayal Singh, [1890] I.L.R., 18 Cal., 83. An opposite view was expressed by the Madras High Court, in Rama Sami v. Kharisu, [1889] I.L.R., 13 Mad., 178, but the learned Judges give no reasons for their opinion. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Punjab Chief Court in Muhammad Fazal Ali v. Kareem Khan,[1894] P.R., 410 in which it was held that the words “at the time of presenting his application” in section 17 are merely directory and not mandatory. We are unable to accept the reasons given by the learned Judges for that opinion. We hold that section 17 requires that at the time of presenting his application the applicant must either deposit in Court the amount of the decree or give security as provided for by the section, so that the deposit of the decretal amount or the furnishing of security is a condition precedent to the entertaining of an application to set aside an ex parte decree. As this condition was not fulfilled in the present case, the application was rightly dismissed and we dismiss this application for revision with costs.