JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - This is an application for revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the order dated the 30th July, 1938, passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Lucknow, allowing the application of the defendant-opposite-party for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him. The applicant's mother obtained an ex parte decree on the 23rd March, 1938, against the defendant-opposite-party from the Judge, Small Cause Court, Lucknow. On the 12th April, 1938, the defendant applied for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he came to know of the ex parte decree on the 1st April, 1938, and he neither received the summons nor any information about the filing of the suit against him. The application was supported by an affidavit in which it was stated that it was on the 1st April, 1938, that the defendant got information about the ex parte decree against him. The Court ordered the applicant on the 13th April, 1938, to deposit the decree money within time according to law. 2. No money was, however, deposited. On the 21st April, 1938, the defendant made a fresh application, in which he stated that the defendant had no cash and was unable to arrange for the money. Consequently he prayed that a house nay be accepted as a security for the decretal money. The defendant further prayed for 15 days' time to get the security bond registered. On the same day the Court recorded the following order on the application:-- The applicant to get the deed registered on or before the 23rd instant and then file an affidavit on the 23rd April 1938, to the effect that the house mentioned in the application has been hypothecated and the deed registered. If the deed is not registered then the applicant will get no extension of time. 3. On the 23rd April, 1938, the deed was registered and the defendant filed a receipt and an affidavit in Court to the effect that the deed had been registered and the receipt of the Registration Department was filed in support of that fact. The security bond was actually filed in Court on the 6th May, 1938. 4. It was objected by the plaintiff that the security bond not having been filed within time the application for setting aside the ex parte decree had become time-barred. The security bond was actually filed in Court on the 6th May, 1938. 4. It was objected by the plaintiff that the security bond not having been filed within time the application for setting aside the ex parte decree had become time-barred. The contention put forward on behalf of the plaintiff was that the security bond filed on the 6th May, 1938, was filed more than 30 days from the date of the ex parte decree. The learned Judge of Small Cause Court relying on the authority of Azmatullah Khan Vs. Ahmad Ali, 88 Ind. Cas. 581 , AIR 1936 407 (Oudh) and AIR 1937 206 (Oudh) , held that there was a substantial compliance by the defendant with the requirement of Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act and that the filing of the security bond on the 6th May, 1938, should be deemed to be in continuation of the defendant's application dated the 21st April, 1938, in which he had offered to give security of the house. In the result the plaintiff's objection was dismissed and the ex parte decree was set aside. 5. The plaintiff-applicant has now come up to this Court in revision against the aforesaid order. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant that the filing of the application to set aside the ex parte decree on the 12th April, 1938, unaccompanied by the security bond, did not comply with the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the security for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was also urged that upon the merits the order of the lower Court was wrong as the Court made no enquiry and recorded no finding whether there was any sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree. 6. I am of opinion that this application must succeed. The only question that arises for determination before me is whether the Proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which has recently been amended by Act IX of 1935 is mandatory and whether it has been complied with in the present case. Upon both these points my answer is in the affirmative. The only question that arises for determination before me is whether the Proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which has recently been amended by Act IX of 1935 is mandatory and whether it has been complied with in the present case. Upon both these points my answer is in the affirmative. The old Proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act ran thus:-- Provided 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 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 or compliance with the judgment, as the Court may direct. 7. Under Act IX of 1935 this Proviso was amended and now runs as follows:-- Provided 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 due from him under the decree 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. 8. The language of the amended proviso seems to me to present no difficulty and is clear beyond doubt. It clearly means that the applicant for setting aside the ex parte decree must at the time of making his application either deposit the decretal amount or give security for the same as directed by the Court upon a previous application made by him in that behalf. The Proviso clearly predicates the existence of an application to be made by an applicant, who is not prepared to deposit the decretal amount in cash, to ask for the filing of a security as a substitute therefore. Where, however, the applicant is prepared to deposit the decretal amount in cash, he shall do so at the time of presenting his application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Where, however, the applicant is prepared to deposit the decretal amount in cash, he shall do so at the time of presenting his application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Where for some reason or other he is not prepared to deposit the decretal amount in cash, he must file an application prior to his application for setting aside the ex parte decree to the effect that he would desire to give security for the performance of the decree and must obtain direction of the Court before-hand. If the Court agrees to accept security from the applicant instead of cash, it will no doubt make such an order in his favour and the applicant thereafter at the time of presenting his application for setting aside the ex parte decree, shall give such security as the Court has already directed him to give upon his previous application. The object of introducing this amendment is to make it clear that the preliminary application to ascertain what security will satisfy the Court, must be made and decided before the substantive application for an order to set aside the decree is taken up for consideration, and that it is always open to the applicant to adopt the alternative course of depositing the total decretal amount. If the applicant is unable to obtain an order in his favour for filing the security instead of cash, it would be open to him to adopt the alternative remedy of depositing the decretal amount in Court. Whatever doubt may have existed before the introduction of the amended proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as regards the power of the Court to extend the time for depositing the money or the furnishing of the security, it seems to me to be quite clear that the mandatory nature of the amended proviso leaves no room for doubt that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant any extension of time either for making the deposit or for the filing of the security. It was held by a Divisional Bench of the Lahore High Court in Mohammad Ramzan Khan v. Khubi Khan AIR 1938 Lah. It was held by a Divisional Bench of the Lahore High Court in Mohammad Ramzan Khan v. Khubi Khan AIR 1938 Lah. 18, after a consideration of the language of the amended proviso, that the applicant applying u/s 17(1) for a review of judgment or for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte shall and must, at the time of presenting his application, do one of two things, namely, either deposit in Court the amount due from him under the decree or give such security for the performance of the decree as the Court may have directed on a previous application made by him in this behalf if he does not make the previous application, he must put in the decretal amount in full. If he has made it and been successful in getting an order for security instead of depositing the money in full, he can furnish the security which the Court may have previously directed. It is no longer open to the Court to extend the time within which the deposit is to be made or security furnished. 9. The view of the Lahore High Court in the above case has been followed by Mulla J. in Murari Lal Vs. Mohammad Yasin, AIR 1939 All 46 The learned Judge held that it is not within the power of the Court subsequently to entertain an application for an order to set aside an ex-parte decree where it is not accompanied by a deposit in the Court of the amount due under the decree from the applicant, and no application has been previously made for obtaining the direction of the Court to file a security bond. I am aware that the case of Qabul Singh Vs. Jai Prakash, AIR 1939 All 503 decided by the learned Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court (Thorn C.J.), does not approve of the view expressed by Mulla J. The learned Chief Justice in effect expresses the opinion that where the application is made and security is furnished within 30 days there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 17 as amended. With the utmost possible respect I am unable to agree with this view. 10. With the utmost possible respect I am unable to agree with this view. 10. A similar view has been taken by a Bench of the Judicial Commissioner's Court of Sind in AIR 1940 Sindh 105 where it was held that the terms of the Proviso to Section 17(1) are mandatory and the deposit of the decretal amount or the furnishing of a security is a condition precedent to the entertaining of an application under O. IX, Rule 13. Therefore, it is essential that the necessary deposit or security should be lodged at the time of the presenting of the application under Order IX Rule 13, and unless this is done the application must be dismissed. 11. The case of AIR 1936 407 (Oudh) relied upon by the lower Court makes no reference to the amended Proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and has clearly no application to the facts of the present case. Act IX of 1935, which introduced the amended proviso, received the assent of the Governor-General of India on the 28th September, 1935, and was published in the Government of India Gazette dated the 5th October, 1935. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree in the above case was made on the 3rd October, 1935, before the Act came into operation. This probably accounts for the absence of any reference to the amended proviso in the judgment of the learned Judge deciding that: case. Further in that case the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was accompanied by an offer of security and the security bond itself was filed within the period of limitation. Upon the security being found insufficient another security bond was filed by the applicant after the expiry of limitation but the latter security bond was held to be part of the same transaction and consequently the application was held to be within time. 12. The case of AIR 1937 206 (Oudh) , is also inapplicable inasmuch as it was decided under the old proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made on the 27th May, 1935, and was accompanied by a security bond. The security bond having been found to be insufficient the deficiency was made good but after the period of limitation. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made on the 27th May, 1935, and was accompanied by a security bond. The security bond having been found to be insufficient the deficiency was made good but after the period of limitation. It was held that the provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act were substantially complied with and the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was, therefore, maintainable. 13. The case of Azmatullah Khan Vs. Ahmad Ali, 88 Ind. Cas. 581 was a case under the old proviso and has no bearing whatever upon the present case. There the security bond was filed along with the application and the property hypothecated under the bond was much higher in value than the decretal amount. The decretal amount was miscalculated as Rs. 530 instead of Rs. 540-4-0. Before the security, however, could be verified the applicant deposited Rs. 540-4-0 in Court. It was held under the circumstances that there was a substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 17. 14. Having considered the matter carefully in the present case I am of opinion that there was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of the new proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Court's Act and consequently the lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. In view of the conclusion at which I have arrived upon the question of law it is not necessary for me to deal with the question of merits in the case. I allow the application, set aside the order of the lower Court and dismiss the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, with costs in both the Courts.