Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.
1. In this case we think the rule must be made absolute.
2. It appears that on the 6th August 1906 the defendant applied for a review.
3. At that time he did not deposit in Court the amount due from him under the decree, nor did he give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the due performance of the decree or com pliance with the judgment.
4. Now it seems to us looking at the terms of Section 17 and following the two cases which have been cited to us, viz. Jogi Ahir v. Bishen Dayal Singh ILR (1890) Cal 83 and Jagan Nath v. Chet Ram ILR (1906) All 1906 and also looking at the punctuation of the section itself, it is clear that the words 'at the time of presenting his application govern and refer to both the deposit of the amount in Court' and 'the giving of security &c;' and therefore 'deposit' or 'security' is a condition precedent to the granting of the review.
5. The Madras judgment which has been cited to us gives no reason for the contrary opinion and we prefer to follow Jogi Ahir v. Bishen Dayal Singh ILR (1890) Cal 83 and Jagan Nath v. Chet Ram ILR (1906) All 1906
6. The rule, therefore, must be made absolute with costs and the application for review rejected with costs throughout.