1. The petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No. 20 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirumangalam. The suit was decreed against him and he filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge of Madura. The respondent (plaintiff) however filed an application asking that he should be directed to furnish security for costs of the appeal and on this application the District Judge made an order by which he directed the petitioner to furnish security for costs and giving him four weeks, which expired on the 3rd of December, in which to furnish the security adjourned the appeal for orders to the 4th of December, 1937. On the 3rd December, 1937 the petitioner did tender security and it appears that the District Munsif of Tirumangalam adjourned the question of testing the security until the 15th of December. On the 11th of December, however, the District Judge rejected the appeal on the ground that the security had not been furnished within the time prescribed.
2. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the lower Court was complied with by tendering security on the 3rd December, namely the last day of the time allowed for furnishing security. The learned District Judge did not take this View but said that what is contemplated by an order granting time to furnish security is that the security should be furnished within the period allowed by the Court, and that the party should not have the time automatically extended by offering security on the last day and then saying that it should be tested later on. The only authority to which I have been referred which directly bears on the point is a case decided (1927) 52 M.L.J. 53 by Jackson, J. In that case Jackson, J., held that an order granting time for furnishing security was complied with if the security was tendered before the period expired. In my opinion this is the correct view. There must be a specific date by which the security has to be furnished, and there will be no specific date if the person ordered to furnish security has to furnish it some unspecified' time before the expiration of the period fixed in order that it may be tested. I am of opinion therefore that the order of the learned District Judge rejecting the appeal must be set aside. The security tendered will be tested and if it is found to be sufficient it must be held to have been furnished in time. If however the security is not found sufficient it would follow that the order of the District Judge had not been complied with and it will then be open to the District Court to reject the appeal. The costs of this revision petition will abide the result of the appeal.