1. In this case a decree was passed ex parte on the 4th of August, 1924, for a sum of Rs. 174-7-9 with six per cent, interest. On the 16th of August, 1924, the defendant applied for restoration under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. When he applied for restoration, the defendant deposited the sum of Rs. 174-7-9, which was the amount due under the decree at the date of the decree, the 4th of August, 1924. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes dismissed the application for restoration on the ground that the application should have bean accompanied by a deposit of the amount due from the judgment debtor under the decree. So far he was clearly correct. But he went on to interpret these words to mean the amount entered in the decree plus the future interest at 6 per cent, from the 4th of August to the 16th of August, 1924, and here by the respondent an attempt is made to suggest that the words 'at the time of presenting the application' in Section 17 govern not only the action to be taken by the applicant, namely his making a deposit or giving security but that they govern also the words 'the amount due' and that, therefore the amount to be deposited is the amount due under the decree at the time of presenting the application. I do not think that this is so. The words 'the amount due from him under the decree' are certainly capable of two interpretations and may mean 'due under the decree' as entered in the decree or due under the decree at the time of presenting the application. To my mind the words mean 'due under the decree at the data it was given'. The case is quite different from other cases where the parson who has to make a deposit must know the exact amount to a fraction of an anna which he has to deposit. In this case, under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, if the Court of Small Causes is correct, ha would have to deposit not only the sum of Rs. 174-7-9 but would have to calculate the exact amount of interest that was due and, if in making that calculation he was subsequently found to have been short in the amount deposited by half an anna, he would, according to the view that has been taken by the lower Court, necessarily have his application rejected. I do not think that this is so. I think that in depositing Rs. 174-7-9 the defendant-applicant did all that he was called upon to do.
2. I, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court and remand the case to the Court of Small Causes to restore it to its original number and dispose of it in accordance with law. Costs will follow the event.