ORDER : 1. The plaintiffs Chogalal Ramniwas filed a suit against two defendants (1) Champalal and (2) Ramchandra for a sum of Rs. 430/10/3 in the Court of the Small Causes at Indore. The defendants contested the claim and the trial Court therefore proceeded with the trial. On 29-1-1951 the plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaint and the case was fixed for the reply of the defendants on 1-2-1951. On that day when the case was called the defendants and their pleader were absent and an ex parte decree was passed against the defendants. 2. The same day the defendant's counsel applied for setting aside the ex parte decree. On 20-2-1951 the defendant No. 1 furnished security as required by S. 14 of the Small Cause Courts Act and on 11-8-1951 filed an affidavit in support of the application. In this affidavit the defendant No. 1 has stated that he is a resident of Dhar and could not reach the Court in time on that date as he missed his first bus at Dhar. 3. The trial Court dismissed the application for setting aside the decree holding that there was no sufficient reason for the absence of the defendants. The trial Court also held that the defendant No. 2 had not furnished any security of affidavit though the decree was passed jointly and severally against both. Aggrieved by this order the defendants have preferred this revision application. 4. I do not think that the order of the lower Court can be supported on merits. The case was fixed on 1-2-1951 only for filing a reply to the amendment application and there was no order for the parties to remain present. The trial Court could allow the amendment as in fact it did but was certainly not justified in proceeding to pass an ex parte decree. The counsel for the defendants appeared after some time and filed an application for setting aside the decree on the same day The defendant No. 1 had also turned up as stated by Trim in the affidavit and there is no reason to disbelieve the explanation given by him for his absence when the case was called. 5. The next contention was that security bond was only given on behalf of defendant No. 1 and therefore the application could at the most be regarded as having been filed by the defendant No. 1 alone. 5. The next contention was that security bond was only given on behalf of defendant No. 1 and therefore the application could at the most be regarded as having been filed by the defendant No. 1 alone. Assuming that this is a valid contention the case would be covered by the proviso to O. 9, R. 13, C. P. Code which empowers the Court to set aside the whole decree if it was indivisible and not capable of being set aside only against the defendant applying to set it aside The trial Court was under the circumstances not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners on these grounds. 6. But a further and a controversial point is raised by the learned counsel for the opponent. Mr. G.C. Gupta has urged that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was a defective application as it was not accompanied by a security bond furnished after obtaining the permission of the Court to do so. The learned counsel relied upon the language of S. 14 of the Madhya Bharat Small Cause Courts Act which corresponds to S. 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. He has also referred to the decision of Mulla J. in - 'Jagdamba Prasad v. Ramdas Singh', AIR 1943 All 288 (A) and the judgment of Gulam Hasan, J. in - 'Roshanlal v. Brijlal Ambalal', AIR 1944 Oudh 104 (B). He has also brought to my notice a decision of this High Court in - 'Lalaram v. Keshrimal', Sm. C. Rev. No. 39 of 1950 (C). Since the provisions of S. 14 are similar to S. 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, I will in the discussion of the subject refer to that section. He has also brought to my notice a decision of this High Court in - 'Lalaram v. Keshrimal', Sm. C. Rev. No. 39 of 1950 (C). Since the provisions of S. 14 are similar to S. 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, I will in the discussion of the subject refer to that section. The proviso to S. 17(1) which has a material bearing1 on this point is 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 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'." The portion underlined (here in ' ') was added by an amendment to the Act in the year 1935. There was some controversy over the interpretation of this clause before the amendment and even after the amendment the controversy has not quite subsided. According to some High Courts, the words "at the time of presenting the application" are only directory. According to others the language of this section is mandatory, but there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the proviso if the security is furnished or deposit is made within the period of limitation prescribed for the application. The other High Courts have held that the language of the proviso is mandatory and must be strictly complied with. 7. The main contention raised by Mr. G.C. Gupta is that the application made by the petitioner for setting aside the decree was not accompanied either by deposit of the decretal amount or security bond. But the amendment of 1935 does not affect this part of the argument as there has been no change in the language of this part of the Section. The earlier authorities are therefore relevant for consideration of this aspect. The High Court of Madras in - 'Assan Mahomed Sahib v. Rahim Sahib', AIR 1920 Mad 562 (P.B.) (D), held that the provisions of Section 17 CD are mandatory taut the deposit of the decretal amount may be made or security given within the period of limitation although it did not accompany the application itself. The High Court of Madras in - 'Assan Mahomed Sahib v. Rahim Sahib', AIR 1920 Mad 562 (P.B.) (D), held that the provisions of Section 17 CD are mandatory taut the deposit of the decretal amount may be made or security given within the period of limitation although it did not accompany the application itself. The Full Bench proceeded to take this view, as in their opinion no objection could have been taken if fresh application had been presented when the security was deposited. The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in - 'Ahmed Haji Ibrahim v. Abdul Hussein', AIR 1932 Bom. 40 (E) and the High Court of Allahabad in - 'Rambharose v. Gangasingh', AIR 1931 All 727 (FB) (F). The High Court of Lahore is - 'Gedimal Dharamdas v. Hunamal Shedlu Ram', AIR 1931 Lah 332 (P.B.) (G), held that the proviso under which the surety was to be deposited along with the petition was only directory and not mandatory and arrived at the same results as those of the other High Courts referred above. Even after the amendment these High Courts continued to hold that if security was not furnished along with the application but was given subsequently within the period of limitation, it was a sufficient compliance with S. 17(1) as a fresh application could without objection have been filed on that day. Reference may be made to - 'Bhola v. Mt. Ram Rati', AIR 1946 All 425 (H) and - 'Tarachand v. Durappa Tavanappa', AIR 1943 Bom 237 (I); 'Chathiyelan Kanna Kurup v. Raman Nayar', AIR 1943 Mad 51 (J); - 'Mohanlal v. Firm Muniram Nand Lap, AIR, 1946 Lah 62 (K). The High Court of Calcutta has in - 'Mritunjay v. Bholanath', AIR 1951 Cal 455 (L) and the High Court of Patna has in - 'Ghinoo Chaudhuri v. Ramjapu Singh', AIR 1938 Pat 106 (M) likewise held that if the application for setting aside the decree was not accompanied by the security deposit and the security was filed subsequently and yet within the period of limitation when separate application could have been legally preferred the provision of S. 17(1) are substantially complied with. 8. 8. By the amendment of the proviso, it is now provided that when instead of cash deposit the defendant wants to give security in other form, the direction of the Court must be obtained, on a previous application made by him in this behalf. Mr. G. C. Gupta, the learned Advocate for the non-applicant therefore next contended that the petitioner had to make an application for this direction before the application to set aside the decree is filed. The contention of Mr. Gupta receives support from the view expressed in - 'AIR 1944 Oudh 104 (B)' and - ' AIR 1943 All 288 (A)' - ' AIR 1946 All 425 (H)'. 9. In the present case the application under O. 9, R. 13, C.P. Code, was made on 1-2-1951 and neither a security bond was furnished nor cash was deposited along with it. The Court could have rejected this application but without doing so it was allowed to remain pending. The deficiencies were made good on 20-2-1951 when the period prescribed by Art. 164 had not expired and the applicant was entitled to file a fresh application without objection on this score. The security was also furnished after obtaining the direction of the Court on an application made previously on the same day. There is no reason why this should not be treated as a substantial compliance with the provisions of S. 17(1). The application though filed earlier was incomplete and could be held to have been presented on 20-2-1951 as on that day a fresh application by the defendants could have been filed. This view finds support from the decision in - 'Mt. Bipti v. Kalidin', AIR 1951 All 420 (N) and - ' AIR 1951 Cal 455 (L)'. In the latter case the Calcutta High Court held that when direction of the Court to deposit security is not obtained before the application under O. 9, R. 13, C.P. Code is filed and when security is not deposited along with that application but some days later, the application should be taken to have been presented when security was deposited. A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad has taken a similar view in - 'Mt. Bipti v. Kalidin', AIR 1951 All 420 (N). A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad has taken a similar view in - 'Mt. Bipti v. Kalidin', AIR 1951 All 420 (N). The learned Judges dissented from the view expressed by Mulla, J. in - 'Murarilal v. Mohammad Yasin', AIR 1939 All 46 (O) and in - ' AIR 1943 All 288 (A)' and held that if the defects in the application were removed by a date on which a, fresh application was possible, the original application under O. 9, R. 13 could be treated as presented on such a day. In the case of - 'AIR 1946 Lah 62 (K)', Abdul Rahman, J. held that if the provisions of S. 17(1) are complied with and the defects removed before the period provided by Art. 164 expired the applications should be deemed to have been made on the date the defects are removed. It was a case where the defendant applied under O. 9, R. 13, C.P. Code without furnishing any security. Subsequently the Court ordered the defendant to furnish security and thereafter the defendant furnished a security bond. By this time the limitation had not expired and the High Court held that the application should be deemed to have been filed on the date the security was furnished. 10. The trend of authorities is thus overwhelmingly in support of the view presented by Mr. D.G. Bhalerao, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The various High Courts have not ignored the language used in Section 17(1) of the Small Causes Court Act but have proceeded on a different principle. According to these High Courts an application which is not in conformity with the provision of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is defective and could be rejected by the Court. But if the Court keeps it pending and allows the deficiency to be made good and the defects are actually removed on a day on which fresh application was competent, the original application could be deemed to have been presented on the date on which the defects are made good. The matter was not discussed in details in - 'Sm. But if the Court keeps it pending and allows the deficiency to be made good and the defects are actually removed on a day on which fresh application was competent, the original application could be deemed to have been presented on the date on which the defects are made good. The matter was not discussed in details in - 'Sm. C. R. No. 39 of 1950 (Madh-B) (C)', and it appears that the latest authorities on this subject viz., - ' AIR 1951 All 420 (N)' and - ' AIR 1951 Cal 455 (L)' as also - 'AIR 1946 Lah 62 (K)' were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who decided that case. In - 'AIR 1948 62 (K)', - 'Mahomed Ramzan Khan v. Khubi Khan', AIR 1938 Lah 18 (P) has been considered and explained and in - ' AIR 1951 All 420 (N)', the decision in - ' AIR 1948 All 425 (H)' has been considered and followed. In my opinion the application in the present case should be deemed to have been filed on February 20, 1951 and it was not on that day barred by time. 11. I allow the revision application and set aside the order of the trial Court. The application under O. 9, R. 13 is allowed and the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 932 of 1950 is set aside. The parties shall in the circumstances of this case bear their own costs of this Court. Revision allowed.