Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— The SCC Suit No. 24 of 2002 was filed by the Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectement. The trial court allowed the suit ex-parte by order dated 9.4.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said recall application was registered as Misc. No. 2 of 2009 and further an application No. 13 C for granting two months' time for compliance of Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short ?PSCC Act?) was filed. Another application No. 19 C' along with affidavit and security bond was also filed by the petitioner which was allowed on 16.2.2009. By the impugned order dated 11.4.2011, the court held that registration of immovable property for pledging as security under Section 17 of the PSCC Act is necessary. Hence that security furnished by petitioner requires registration and the petitioner was granted time to get the security registered till 30.4.2011. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the security bond as furnished by the petitioner through which the immoveable property to the extent of Rs. 7,70,000/- was pledged requires registration or not. The matter is covered by the decisions of this Court in the case of Shabbir Husain Vs. IIIrd Addl. District Judge, 2006 V 1 AWC Page 511 and Krishan Kumar Vs. Hakim Mohamma, 1978 ALR Page 541 wherein it has been held that registration of immovable property for pledging as security under Section 17 of the PSCC Act is necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has neither been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order dated 11.4.2011 nor has been able to refer any relevant authority contrary to the view taken by this Court in the cases of Shabbir Husain Vs. IIIrd Addl. District Judge (supra) and Krishan Kumar Vs. Hakim Mohamma (supra). In view of the above, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. The court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the security offered by the petitioner with regard to the immovable property requires registeration. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. _