Order This revision arises out of proceedings to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a suit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.434.49 was posted for final disposal on 29th May, 1961. The defendant was absent and, on his Counsel reporting no instructions, setting the defendant ex parte, the suit was decreed. The defendant subsequently filed a petition to have the ex parte decree set aside, and the petition was accompanied by a draft security bond. The security was ordered to be tested and the petition was posted to 26th June, 1961. The matter got adjourned to 30th June, 1961, on which date the Amin reported that the security offered was sufficient. The Court directed the fair bond to be filed by 7th July, 1961. The fair bond duly registered on 5th July, 1961, could not be filed by 7th July, 1961, as the petitioner could not get the return of it from the Registrar's Office. There was delay in securing it even on 10th. July, 1961. The petitioner filed a petition for excusing the delay in filing the fair bond and for acceptance of the fair bond. On behalf of the plaintiff-decree-holder it was contended that as the security had not been accepted within thirty days’ time as allowed by law, the decree could not be set aside. The lower Court felt bound by the decisions of the Court and has dismissed the application. Mr. T.K. Subramania Pillai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Court below erred in rejecting the application in the view that the fair bond was filed out of time. It is submitted that the security offered by the draft bond has itself been found sufficient and all that is necessary is to tender the security. It is urged that in the circumstances it must be held that there has been a valid giving of security. I am afraid that however hard and unfortunate the result may be, in the light of the decisions of this Court, it must be held that the petitioner cannot rely upon his having filed the draft security bond in time. In Marimuthu Gounder v. Ponnammal (1956) 2 MLJ. I am afraid that however hard and unfortunate the result may be, in the light of the decisions of this Court, it must be held that the petitioner cannot rely upon his having filed the draft security bond in time. In Marimuthu Gounder v. Ponnammal (1956) 2 MLJ. 25 , a Division Bench of this Court has summarised the position thus: “To sum up, we hold that what section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act requires is that within the period of 30 days security should be placed in the hands of the Court by the Applicant of such a nature that if ultimately accepted it should be sufficient to enforce the obligation upon him and make the money assured in its payment, or more readily recoverable. Judged by this, test, a duly executed unregistered security bond would be sufficient compliance with the law, though not registered but subsequently registered, the delay in getting it registered being not due to any fault of the applicant.” The point to be noted is that the bond that must be filled into Court within the time limited is a duly executed bond. If such a bond had been filed, then it could be enforced without reference to the judgment-debtor. But a draft bond not executed by the judgment-debtor cannot satisfy the purpose. Security could be held to have been duly tendered if, without any further voluntary act on the part of the judgment-debtor, the security bond could be made legally enforceable and enforced. This Court in the above decision in fact, put a liberal construction on section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act widening the principle from, certain earlier decisions and adopted the decision of the Patna High Court in Rajeswari Prasad Singh, v. Brahmanand Lal 2 I.L.R. (1933) 42 Pat. 745. Extracts from the said judgment were set out by this Court as indicating what this Court considered to be the correct interpretation of what should be done to comply with the provisions of section 17 within the prescribed time. In the Patna decision, Khaja Mohammad Noor, J., observed: “I also respectfully agreed with the decision of Sen, J., in Kuleshwar Lal v. Satya Brata Banerji 1926 Pat.L.T. 38, that filing of a draft security bond is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. In the Patna decision, Khaja Mohammad Noor, J., observed: “I also respectfully agreed with the decision of Sen, J., in Kuleshwar Lal v. Satya Brata Banerji 1926 Pat.L.T. 38, that filing of a draft security bond is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. But here the question is, whether a duly executed bond (though not registered but subsequently registered) is a sufficient offer of security within the meaning of section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. In my opinion the criterion is this. Was the security which the party placed in the hands of the Court and which the Court ultimately accepted sufficient to enforce the obligation upon him Judged by this test an unregistered security bond is, in my opinion sufficient compliance with the law, provided that the delay in getting it registered is not due to any fault of the applicant himself. In this case the applicant placed himself in the hands of the Court by giving the Court a fully executed bond.” Observations to similar effect are found in the judgment of the other learned Judge, Agarwala, J., in the Patna case: “In the present case the bond that was tendered as security, as has already been pointed out by my learned brother, was properly executed, stamped and attested, and it was filed within the time allowed bylaw. The Court before which it was filed accepted the bond as security and directed the applicant to register it.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Satyanarayana v. Ramabrahman (1960) 1 An. W.R. 24: A.I.R. 1960 A.P. 230(F.B.). The Court before which it was filed accepted the bond as security and directed the applicant to register it.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Satyanarayana v. Ramabrahman (1960) 1 An. W.R. 24: A.I.R. 1960 A.P. 230(F.B.). The question referred to the Full Bench was: What is the meaning to be given to words ‘give such security for the performance of the decree in the proviso to section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887).” After referring to an earlier decision of the Madras High Court, the Full Bench observed: A later Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Marimuthu Goundar v. Ponnammal (1956) 2 M.L.J. 25 , how ever, showed preference for a mere liberal construction of the proviso……..In taking this view, the learned Judges accepted with approval the reasoning in the decision of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Rajeswari v. Brahmanand Lal I.L.R. (1933) 42 Pat. 745, where the terms of the proviso received a liberal construction. No express departure from the decisions of the Madras and Patna High Courts is made by the Full Bench. After posing for consideration the question whether the filing in time of the draft bond, which was accepted by the Court after scrutiny after the period prescribed, would be a sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 17, the procedure ordinarily followed in Courts in that State is set out and ultimately it is observed: Very often due to the exigencies of work in Court, it may not be possible for the presiding officer to dispose of the application expeditiously within the time prescribed. It is not difficult to envisage cases where, for no fault of the applicant, the eventual order passed by the Court accepting the security bond is beyond the prescribed period. Should the party be penalised for the delays occurring in the Courts.” And the Full Bench conclusion, as a result of the discussion was Where security is tendered within the time and proves, even though tested after the time eventually to be sufficient, the applicant must be deemed to have complied with the requirements of She proviso. The words ‘give such security’ may be construed to mean “tender such security” . The words ‘give such security’ may be construed to mean “tender such security” . Learned Counsel contends that the Full Bench recognised the propriety of a proper draft bond containing security acceptable to the Court being filed in the first instance within the time, followed up later by a duly registered bond and submitted that it is desirable that the decision of this Court in the earlier Division Bench decision be reconsidered. 1 see no reason for any reconsideration. It must be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has not expressly departed from the reasoning of this Court in Marimuthu Goundar v. Ponnammal (1956) 2 MLJ. 25 . The final answer given by the Full Bench to the question referred, does not, in my view, differ from the view taken by this Court. The decision of the lower Court is, in the circumstances, unexceptionable. In the result the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R.M.-----Petition dismissed.