JUDGMENT King, J. - This is an application in revision against an order passed by a Judge of Small Cause Court rejecting a security bond as insufficient and accordingly dismissing an application for restoration of a suit which had been decreed ex-parte. The security bond had originally been accepted as sufficient, but on objection being taken by the opposite-party the Court reconsidered the matter and came to the conclusion that the property of the surety was insufficient. 2. The first point taken by the Counsel for the applicant is that once the security bond has been accepted the Court should not have reopened the matter and have reconsidered the question of sufficiency. No authority has been shown to me for the proposition that once a security bond has been accepted as sufficient it cannot, on objection being made by the opposite-party, be reconsidered. 3. It is further argued that even if the Court was at liberty to reconsider the sufficiency of the security bond and to find it insufficient still the Court should have given the applicant further time to deposit fresh security and should not have dismissed the application for restoration straight away. In support of this proposition the applicant relies upon a ruling by a Bench of this Court in Mata Din Kandu Vs. Ram Lakhan Ahir and Another, AIR 1930 All 87 . The facts of this case were some what similar but that case is distinguishable on the ground that the Judge of the Small Cause Court took a wrong view of the law in refusing to accept a hypothecation bond executed by the father of a joint Hindu family in respect of joint ancestral property. The learned Judge took the view that the Court below had acted on a wrong view of the law and further went on to say that even if the Court below had held the bond to be invalid on such a legal ground he should have given an opportunity to the Appellant to furnish fresh security. That case is distinguishable on the facts, as in the present case the trial court did not take objection to the security bond on any legal ground but merely found that the amount of the property was insufficient. That case is distinguishable on the facts, as in the present case the trial court did not take objection to the security bond on any legal ground but merely found that the amount of the property was insufficient. I do not think it can be laid down as a general proposition that whenever a security bond is found to be insufficient, a further opportunity must invariably be given to produce a fresh security bond. I cannot find that the trial court has acted with any material irregularity or illegality and I dismiss this application with costs.