1. This is an office report in a Privy Council case. Bishan Singh obtained leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decree of this Court in First Appeal No. 48 of 1932. Leave was granted on 7(;h May 1937. At the time of granting the certificate, the Court dispensed with the security in cash or in Government securities and permitted the appellant to furnish security of another kind. One Bukh Nandan Singh executed a hypothecation bond and became surety for the payment of Rs. 4000, the respondents' costs in the Privy Council appeal. He hypothecated immovable property which has since been declared to be of sufficient value. The bond was duly registered and was filed in this Court on 30th July 1937, which is well within the limitation allowed by Order 45, Rule 7 Civil P.C. The Court sent the bond to the lower Court for 'verification' and report. Notice was sent to Sukh Nandan Singh by the lower Court in response to which he appeared and stated that the appellant had agreed to deposit Rs. 4000 with him to indemnify him against any possible loss that might be occasioned and that as the appellant had not fulfilled his promise, he, (Sukh Nandan Singh), was no longer willing to stand surety. He did not deny having executed the bond and having had it duly registered. The lower Court reported all the circumstances which had transpired and the fact that Sukh Nandan Singh refused to 'verify' the bond. On the case coming up before this Court on a previous occasion, the appellant's counsel offered to deposit Rs. 4000 in cash to avoid all possible difficulties. This has been done. The respondents counsel objects to the appeal being admitted on the ground that the security has not been furnished within the time allowed by Order 45, Rule 7, Civil P.C. His contention pre-supposes that the security has been furnished on the date on which the sum of Rs. 4000 was deposited.
2. We do not think that this assumption is right. The appellant was at liberty to furnish security of immovable property; It was open to him to hypothecate any such property belonging to himself or to persuade some other person to pledge property of sufficient value and be a surety for payment of Rs. 4000 in case the respondents become entitled to it as the result of the Privy Council appeal. It is not disputed that Sukh Nandan Singh actually hypothecated property of sufficient value and executed a duly registered bond, There can be no doubt that if nothing had happened, the security would have been deemed to have been furnished on 30th July 1937, when the bond was filed in this Court, regardless of the fact that the report as to the sufficiency of the security and of the 'verification' of the bond was received long after the expiry of the limitation provided by Order 45, Rule 7, Civil P.C. If the security had proved insufficient, the position might have been different. We think that in the circumstances of the case, the security should be deemed to have been furnished on 30th July 1937. The fact that subsequently Sukh Nandan Singh attempted to resile from his undertaking is in our opinion immaterial in j view of the appellant having promptly substituted cash security therefor. The 'verification' of the security bond merely means admission by the executant of the security bond that he had executed the bond. This was never denied by Sukh Nandan Singh. His action should more appropriately be described not as one re. fusing to verify, but as a declaration of his intention to resile from his undertaking, We think that for all technical requirements of Order 45, Rule 7, Civil P.C., security should be considered to have been furnished within time. Accordingly, we declare the appeal to be admitted. The delay in the deposit of counting fee is condoned.