Judgment N.L.Untwalia, J. 1. A small cause court suit filed by the opposite party against the petitioner was decreed ex parte on the 9th November, 1962. On the 8th December, 1962, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parts decree. This application was insufficiently stamped. On the same date), he filed another insufficiently stamped application along with a chalan to deposit the decretal amount as required by the proviso to Sec.17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The application under Order 9, Rule 13 was filed on the 30th day, that is, on the last day of the period fixed by the Limitation Act. On an office report being made, the deficit stamps were supplied on or before the 20th December, 1962. The chalan, however, was passed on the 3rd January, 1963, and the money was actually deposited in the treasury on the 4th January, 1963. The Court below has held that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called cut for hearing, but the application has been held to be not maintainable because the decretal money was not deposited in time. The petitioner has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court. 2. In support of this application, Mr. Sarwar Ali, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that he did whatever was in his power to do on the 8th December, 1962 for the deposit of the money in Court, and he cannot be held responsible for the delay made by the Court in passing the; chalan. Counsel, therefore, submitted that in substance and in law the deposit was made at the time of the filing of the application when the Court accepted the money by passing the chalan subsequently. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Madras High Court in Koilpillai Samban V/s. Sappanimuthu Samban, 72 Ind Cas 220 : AIR 1923 Mad 354 (2) and upon two decisions of this Court in Bijoy Singh V/s. Kirtyanand Singh, AIR 1932 Pat 342 and Sudarsan Mahto V/s. Radhika Prasad Singh, AIR 1960 Pat 311 . Mr. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Madras High Court in Koilpillai Samban V/s. Sappanimuthu Samban, 72 Ind Cas 220 : AIR 1923 Mad 354 (2) and upon two decisions of this Court in Bijoy Singh V/s. Kirtyanand Singh, AIR 1932 Pat 342 and Sudarsan Mahto V/s. Radhika Prasad Singh, AIR 1960 Pat 311 . Mr. J. K. Prasad, appearing for the opposite party, submitted that the requirement of the proviso to Sec.17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is mandatory and the mere filing of the chalan by the petitioner was no compliance with the said requirement either in substance or in law. He also placed reliance upon decisions, which are not necessary to be discussed in any detail. 3. It is by now well settled and it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also that the requirement of the proviso to Sec.17 of the Act is mandatory; and if there was no compliance with the said requirement either in substance or in law the application, for setting aside the ex parte decree could not be allowed. The only question, therefore, which falls for my determination is as to whether the petitioner had complied with the requirements of the said proviso. 4. From the records of the case, it is clear that the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was filed on the 8th December, 1962 and the petitioner merely filed another application along with a chalan but did not take any other steps which he could have taken under the law and according to the rules prescribed by this High Court for the deposit of the money on the day when he filed the application. If he would have taken steps on the 8th December, 1962 for getting the chalan passed by moving that Court, by paying the deficit stamps on the two petitions or by taking other necessary steps, it is obvious that the chalan could have been passed by the Court on that very date and in all probability the cashier of the court could have been directed to accept the money on that very date. Nothing of the kind was done on behalf of the petitioner. Nothing of the kind was done on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the fact that both the petitions were insufficiently stamped, it was not expected that the presiding officer of the court or the office would take steps on such applications on the same date, would pass the chalan and the presiding officer would on his own motion direct the cashier to accept the money. That being the position, the passing of the chalan subsequently on the 3rd January, 1963 and the deposit of the money on the following day, that is, on the 4th January, 1963 was, in my opinion, not a substantial compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Sec.17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act I would have held in favour of the petitioner even if he would have moved the court for passing the chalan and would have taken back the chalan after being passed on the 8th December, 1962 and would have deposited tha money on the following day, that is, on the 9th December, 1962. But, on considering the authorities cited before me I am of the view that it is difficult to hold on the facts of this case that the mere filing of the chalan was a valid tender of the money to the court tantamount to the deposit of the money in court. The procedure prescribed in Rule 10 onwards and specially in Rule 11 of Chapter 1 of Part 10 at page 193 of the General Rules and Circular Order (Civil) of the Patna High Court, Vol. 1, does indicate that in ordinary course some time is bound to elapse between the filing of the chalan and its passing by the court; and if the petitioner chose to file chalan with a defective application on the last day of the limitation, it cannot be held that by merely filing the chalan fie tendered the money for deposit in court according to law and that it should be held to be tantamount to deposit of money in court. 5. In the Madras case cited on behalf of the petitioner, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court has held on the facts of that case that the maxim nunc pro tune applies and the application for chalan is equivalent to the deposit. 5. In the Madras case cited on behalf of the petitioner, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court has held on the facts of that case that the maxim nunc pro tune applies and the application for chalan is equivalent to the deposit. The facts would be found from the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner on that case which are mentioned in column 2 at page 220. On the filing of the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the reopening day --the last day of the limitation having expired during the holidays, the chalan was asked for at once, but on account of the mistake of the court it was issued five days later and thereafter the deposit was made at once. In the instant case, there was no mistake of the office. The application itself was filed defective; and the office or the court was not expected to take proper steps upon such an application when it was not moved on behalf of the petitioner nor was any step taken on his behalf to re move the defects or to obtain the chalan at once after being passed. In the Patna case reported in Brijbhusan Pande V/s. Ramjanam Kuer, AIR 1932 Pat 324, the petitioner had come at 10.30 a.m. on the 15th day of the sale for the deposit of the balance money under Order 21, Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He tendered the chalans for the balance of the purchase money to the Chief Ministerial officer of the court. The chalans were made over to the Judge-in-charge for signature; but the petitioner did not get back the chalans on that day and without them the money could not be paid into the treasury. The chalans were not returned until the next open day, when the petitioner duly deposited the balance of the purchase money in the treasury. Following the decision of th9 Calcutta High Court, it was held that if the money was brought into court within the time fixed and the persin intending to deposit the money diligently took the necessary steps required by the Departmental Rules for its actual payment into the treasury, it was a sufficient compliance with the rules. In the instant case, the petitioner did not diligently take the necessary steps required by the Departmental Rules. In the instant case, the petitioner did not diligently take the necessary steps required by the Departmental Rules. In the case reported in AIR 1960 Pat 311 , the chalan was once passed on the 14th of April, 1954; but the time for making the deposit mentioned in the chalan expired. It was resubmitted for re-enfacement on the 29th of April, 1954. It was passed also before the sale was held. The courts were sitting in the morning and the treasury working hours were in the day. The money was actually deposited on the 29th April, 1954 in the treasury but after the sale had been held. In such a situation, Mahapatra, J. has held that the court by passing the chalan before holding the sale notionally received the money and the physical deposit of money some time later was not of much significance. Here, in the instant case, It is difficult to hold that by mere filing of the chalan, the money was tendered in court and was notionally received by the court. As I have said above, if the petitioner would have taken steps to get the chalan passed on that date and if the chalan would have been actually passed on that day, perhaps it would have been of no consequence if the money was physically put in the hands of the cashier of the court or the treasury a day later. I do not feel persuaded to relax the meaning of the proviso to Sec.17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to the extent as suggested on behalf of the petitioner. 6. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed but I would make no order as to costs.