JUDGMENT Yorke, J. - This is an application u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Lucknow, 'rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 13 for restoration of a suit decreed 2. The opposite-party plaintiff instituted a suit No. 3168 of 1937 in the Small Cause Court Lucknow against three persons to recover a sum of Rs. 428-8-0 due on a pro-note purporting to have been 'executed by all those three persons. The plaintiff discharged one of these persons, apparently because the promissory note was partly burnt and the thumb-impression of this defendant was not any longer in existence. On the 21st December, 1937, a decree on contest was given against the defendant Madar Baksh and an ex parte decree against Mst. Sheikhani the present applicant. The decree-holder proceeded to execute his decree which he got transferred to the Court of the Munsif North, against the immovable property of Mst. Sheikhani. A notice was issued under Order XXI, Rule 54, but learned Counsel says that he is unable to give the date of that notice. On the 20th July, 1938, aft application was made to the Judge of the Small Cause Court under Order IX Rule 13 in which it was alleged that the applicant got knowledge of the ex parte decree in the last week of July, evidently a slip either for the first for some earlier week of July. 3. Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act contains a proviso limiting the general application of the procedure prescribed by, the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides that: An applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte or for a review of Judgment, shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the amount dud from under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may,' on a previous application made by him in this behalf, Have directed. It seems to me to be perfectly obvious that the intention of this section is that a person who proposes to apply under Order IX; Rule 13 in the case of a decree of Small Cause Court and does not propose to deposit the amount due under the decree along with his application but to deposit a security must previously make a formal application to the Court and obtain permission by means of such application for the giving of security. With the present application the applicant neither deposited the am aunt required nor had she. previously made any application for permission to give security. The judge of the Small Cause Court passed an order "let the decretal amount be filed first". 4. Instead of complying with this order Mst. Sheikhani on the 2lst July, 1938, filed a security bond executed on the previous day by one Mohammad Ibrahim, and on this the Judge passed the order, "let it be filed". Proceedings followed for registration and verification of the security, and it was not until the 10th September, 1938, that notice was issued to the decree-holder for the first time. The decree-holder at once put in an objection that the provisions of Section 17 had not bean complied with. The matter proceeded further and it was not until the stage of arguments was reached that on the 17th November the present applicant filed an application "saying that the Judge had given oral permission for the filing of security. Upon this application the Judge passed an order or comment stating that the allegation was without foundation. He proceeded on the 28th November to dismiss the application under Order IX, Rule 13 holding that there had been no substantial compliance with the provisions of the amended Section 17 which are mandatory. He referred to cases which have also been put before me of the Patna and Lahore High Courts in this connection. 5. Learned Counsel for the present applicant seems to contend that there was a substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 17, but in the light of the remarks of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court on the application of the 17th November, it is apparent that no permission was at any stage given to" the applicant to give security. Learned Counsel has referred to only one case of this Court, Din Mohammad v. Darbarilal AIR 1937 Oud 206, which he thinks supports the view that the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 17 are only directive and not mandatory, but this case does not lead to that conclusion. It is a case in which with an application for restoration a security bond was filed. Subsequently this security bond was held to be insufficient but the applicant was allowed to file a fresh bond. No question was raised in that case as to whether permission had been taken from the Court on an application previously made for the giving of security. What the learned Single Judge of this Court held was that there had been substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 17 and indeed unless the point was taken that no permission had been previously granted, there evidently was substantial compliance. This case is therefore not helpful. 6. Reference was also made to the Patna case of Ghinoo Chaudhuri Vs. Ramjapu Singh, AIR 1938 Patna 106 . In the course of the judgment in this case the learned Judge remarked: It appears to be the view of all the High Courts in India except Lahore that the requirements of Section 17, Small Cause Courts Act, that the amount due or security for it is Id be furnished, at the time of presenting the application" can only be relaxed to this extent that if the application is presented without the money or the security bond and the security bond or money is put in thereafter, the application will be considered, to have been duly tiled on the date on which the money was put in or the security furnished as the case may be. 7. The learned Judge of the Court below has remarked that this view seems to be based on the section as it stood prior to the amendment, and it is apparent' on a reference to the old section that that must be the case. The old section provided that the applicant should "at the time of presenting his application" either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree. The old section provided that the applicant should "at the time of presenting his application" either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree. The learned Judge of the Patna High Court does not seem to have had the amended section in front of him when he thus summarized the law. On the other hand in Mohammad Ramzan v. Khubi Khan AIR 1938 Lah. 18 a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has held that the provisions of I the section as amended are absolutely] mandatory and I can see no good reason for differing from that view. The applicant chose to come to the Small Cause Court without having previously made an application for permission to give security and did not deposit in cash the amount of the decree. Her application was clearly not maintainable and was rightly rejected by the Court below.