ORDER N.N. Sharma, J. - This is a plaintiffs revision directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-3-1984 recorded by Sri Radha Kant, learned XIII Additional District Judge, Kanpur in original suit No. 39 of 1981 by which the ex parte decree dated 9-9-1982 was set aside and the application of applicant Arjun Dass under 0. 9, R. 13, C.P.C. dated 6-12-1982 paper No. 54Ga, was allowed on payment of Rs. 30/- as costs to the opposite parties. The suit was restored to its original number. 2. The dispute relates to the portion of premises No. 105/693 Bhannapurwa, Kanpur wherein the respondents had installed a rice machine. He used to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The disputed premises were purchased by revisionist and three others who are opposite parties I to 3. The aforesaid suit No. 39 of 1981 was filed on the J.S.C.C. side for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. Ex parte judgment and decree in that suit were set aside as given above. 3. It was averred in the application under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C., that the landlords wanted to eject Arjun Dass by hook or crook; the rent was regularly deposited by him; tenant also filed a suit for injunction against the landlords which was decreed on 22-10-1981 and the landlords were restrained from dispossessing him by force. He deposited the rent under of S. 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1979 as the landlords refused to accept the rent remitted to them by money order. They also did not accept the rent tendered by him. 4. The applicant was kept in dark about the aforesaid suit and learnt about it when his machinery etc. were thrown out by Sri Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate who was appointed Commissioner by the court to deliver possession to Lala Ram and others. He got the file inspected on 29-11-1982 and learnt about the deception practised on him. 5. The prayer was opposed by the decree-holder on the ground that the report of the process server on the summons was correct; applicant had full knowledge of the suit and decree. There was no compliance of S. 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the application was not maintainable. 6. Learned court below found that the security afforded was accepted by the court on 8-12-1982, applicant Arjun Dass was the victim of deception. There was no compliance of S. 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the application was not maintainable. 6. Learned court below found that the security afforded was accepted by the court on 8-12-1982, applicant Arjun Dass was the victim of deception. No process was served on him nor he received any registered notice nor he was served by publication. Aggrieved by this order this revision has been filed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On behalf of the revisionist it was argued before me that proviso appended to S. 17 of P.S.C.C. Act was mandatory and it has not been complied with. 9. The aforesaid proviso appended to S. 17 aforesaid reads :- "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." Thus the contention was that there has been non compliance with this mandatory provision. This provision did not include a security offered by Arjun Dass which was accepted wrongly by the court below. 10. It appears that the bond offered by Sri Argun Dass was provisionally accepted by the learned trial Judge on 8-12-1982. It bound the applicant to pay the decretal amount. Para 2 of the bond is extracted below:- "That I hereby guarantee the payment of the said amount towards the satisfaction of the decree due under this bond from my personal properties, namely Rice Machine valued Rs. 10,000/- and Electric motor valued Rs. 6000/- in all totalling Rs. 16,000/-." The learned trial Judge observed that the original documents that were ordered to be shown by tenant, were actually shown on 16-12-1982. 11. Learned Advocate for revisionist argued that the word `Security' used in the said proviso did not cover a personal bond as was held in Archakam Venkatapathi Deekshathulu v. Kathiramangalam Chenga Reddi reported in AIR 1923 Mad 594, It was laid that the proviso was mandatory. 11. Learned Advocate for revisionist argued that the word `Security' used in the said proviso did not cover a personal bond as was held in Archakam Venkatapathi Deekshathulu v. Kathiramangalam Chenga Reddi reported in AIR 1923 Mad 594, It was laid that the proviso was mandatory. It was further observed that there was nothing in the section to prevent a court from accepting personal security although it would not ordinarily do so. So this authority does not rule out the type of security as was offered in this case. 12. The next authority relied upon by revisionist has been reported in a Division Bench case Sakhawat Hussain v. Rajjab reported in, AIR 1951 All 424 , In that case application for restoration of suit and setting aside the ex parte decree was accompanied with a prayer to accept the personal bond of the judgment-debtor. That prayer was accepted. It was held that there was no flaw if the court accepted the same. It was pointed out that in such cases personal bond should not ordinarily be accepted, although there was no legal bar. 13. In the instant case there was hypothecation bond and not a mere personal bond and so its acceptance by learned trial Judge cannot be faulted on that score. 14. The next contention was that this bond was unregistered. It is in evidence that Rice machine and Electric meter (motor) were not embedded in earth but had already been uprooted at the time of hypothecation. So these articles could not be treated as immovable property so as to attract the principle laid in Kasematt v. Ajoyanda Paul Taut reported in, AIR 1956 Cal 375 . 15. Learned counsel for the revisionist also relied upon Ram Khelawan Chaudhari v. Dunia Lal Chaudhari reported in AIR 1934 Pat 74, In that case the security bond hypothecating immovable property filed in time was unregistered and so it was held that such defect was fatal. In the instant case there is nothing on record to show that the aforesaid articles were embedded in earth at the time of hypothecation and so required registration. Thus when the said bond had been accepted by the learned trial Judge in exercise of his discretion this Court would be slow to interfere in revision as was held in Dulla Prasad v. Smt. Rajeshwari Bibi reported in, AIR 1977 All 151 . 16. Thus when the said bond had been accepted by the learned trial Judge in exercise of his discretion this Court would be slow to interfere in revision as was held in Dulla Prasad v. Smt. Rajeshwari Bibi reported in, AIR 1977 All 151 . 16. In Bhagwan Dass Arora v. First Addl. District Judge, Rampur reported in, (1983) 9 All LR 540 : AIR 1983 SC 954 the appellant sought for setting aside the ex parte decree recorded by the Court of Small Causes for arrears of rent, etc. The appellant on 8th Aug. 1977 moved an application under the proviso of S. 17(1) of the aforesaid Act (Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887) requesting the court to permit him to give security for the performance of decree in lieu of his liability to deposit the decretal amount. The court permitted him to deposit Rs. 2700/- in cash and for the balance of the decretal amount to furnish adequate security. On 31st Aug. 1977 the applicant moved an application under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C., requesting the court to set aside ex parte decree as he happened to fall ill suddenly. On that day he deposited Rs. 2700/- in cash in court. On 21-7-1977 Munsarim of the Court reported that the security bond furnished by the appellant was not duly stamped nor it was drawn on an appropriate stamp paper. The court directed the appellant to furnish the requisite stamps within a week. The appellant complied on 5-10-1977. It was maintained by decree-holder that there was no compliance with the mandatory provision aforesaid and so application of appellant under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C., was incomplete and liable to dismissal. The trial court accepted this contention and dismissed this application. After an unsuccessful revision petition in the district court, appellant moved a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court at Allahabad. It was held by this Court that as appellant failed to furnish the adequate security bond duly stamped within the period of limitation, application under O. 9, R. 13. C.P.C., was incomplete and ineffective. It was held by Supreme Court at page 544 (of All LR) : (at p. 957 of AIR) :- "We are of the opinion that preferences of Judges should not be allowed to work hardship on litigant in respect of a procedural provision. C.P.C., was incomplete and ineffective. It was held by Supreme Court at page 544 (of All LR) : (at p. 957 of AIR) :- "We are of the opinion that preferences of Judges should not be allowed to work hardship on litigant in respect of a procedural provision. In this state of law and in view of the further fact that after the limitation period of 30 days expired, Munsarim of the Court drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the surety bond was not duly stamped, the appellant, a litigant cannot be penalised on the pain of being thrown out of Court on this technical ground. Justice cannot be a play ground by kicking the ball from one Court to other depending upon which of the conflicting views will ultimately prevail leaving a litigant on the tenterhooks and ultimately to be told that he acted according to the view taken by a Full Bench of a High Court which did not find favour with the learned single Judge of the High Court of the State in which he resided. This is not justice. This is legalese which ought to be avoided. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the trial court as well as the order in revision petition by the learned Addl. District Judge as also the decision of the High Court and grant the application made by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree and set aside the ex parte decree." 17. The next contention was that the learned trial Judge wrongly rejected the statement of process server Rais Ahmad, O. P.W 1 who went to serve the summons. Statement of Sri Rais Ahmad shows that he was badly shaken in cross-examination about the person who wrote the report on the summons and about the witnesses who attested that report. In this connection learned trial Judge believed the statement of Arjun Dass that he was kept in dark about the summons or acknowledgment due relied upon by the revisionist. Obviously this is a finding of fact and it is not for this court to interfere with the same in revision, as was held in Prabha Shanker Gupta v. II Addl. District Judge, Ballia reported in, 1980 All Rent Cas 287. 18. Obviously this is a finding of fact and it is not for this court to interfere with the same in revision, as was held in Prabha Shanker Gupta v. II Addl. District Judge, Ballia reported in, 1980 All Rent Cas 287. 18. Learned counsel for the revisionist found fault with the impugned order on the ground that the signatures of judgment-debtor on acknowledgement due receipt was wrongly discarded by learned trial Judge. There was nothing on record to show that it was not signed by judgment-debtor. Learned trial Judge wrongly observed that in the absence of examination of postman such service through registered post was unacceptable. 19. In this connection reliance was placed upon Ganga Ram v. Smt. Phoolwati reported in, AIR 1970 All 446 (FB) which held that when the registered envelop containing correct address of tenant was returned with the refusal endorsement a presumption of law under S. 27 of General Clauses Act and presumption of fact under S. 114, Illus. (f), Evidence Act was available to the landlords. However, it was also observed in the same authority that those presumptions were rebuttable. Applicant denied his signatures on acknowledgement report. He also denied the knowledge of such letter. So there was nothing wrong on the part of the learned trial Judge in discarding this evidence specially when he found from a perusal of the order sheet (Annexure-3) appended to the stay application, that there was no order of the court to issue process through registered post. Even the order of issuing summons was recorded on 14-9-1981 so such service of summons or acknowledgement due dated 26-7-1981 and postal receipt dated 26-7-1981 could not have been anterior to that date unless manoeuvred by someone else. These observations are quite weighty. 20. In Kesto Chandra Chatterjee v. Chandra Pal Singh reported in, 1981 All Rent Cas 281 : 1981 All LJ 151 it was held that the presumption about service of registered letter could be successfully rebutted by defendant tenant if his statement was credible. That statement has been believed by learned trial Judge. So there is no legal or factual defect in the impugned order. 21. Moreover by the impugned order an opportunity was afforded to the tenant to be heard and his defence was not shut out. That statement has been believed by learned trial Judge. So there is no legal or factual defect in the impugned order. 21. Moreover by the impugned order an opportunity was afforded to the tenant to be heard and his defence was not shut out. It was held in Ramji Dass v. Mohan Singh reported in, 1978 All Rent Cas 496 (1) (SC) that court's discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. This is another reason for which I would decline to interfere in revision with the impugned order. 22. No other point was pressed before me in this revision. 23. In the result revision is dismissed with costs. Interim stay order dated 30-3-1984 is vacated, send the record at once to the court below for quick dispatch.