Miller, J.@mdashNo one appeared for respondent. I think the hearing of the application was barred by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act as the security was not deposited until after the petition was disposed of. No doubt in Ramasiuami v. Kurisu ILR (1890) Mad. 178,
Parkar and Wilkinson, JJ., held that Section 17 is ""merely directory,"" but they did not decide that the Judge of the Small Cause Court could allow
the deposit at any time. The District Munsif was in my opinion clearly wrong in hearing the petition before the security was deposited, but in as
much as he heard it without objection on that ground by the plaintiff, and received the deposit, I should not be inclined to set aside the order in
revision. I think, however, that the application was barred by limitation, I agree with the decision in Bimola Soonduree Dassee v. Kalee Kishen
Meojoomdar (1874) 22 W.R. 5 which held that the notice u/s 248 is a process for enforcing the decree and I think that that process is executed
when the notice is served.
2. If this is the right view the present application is barred by limitation, and on that ground I set aside the District Munsif''s order and dismiss the
application for restoration with costs in both Courts.
