P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.
1. Under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, as amended in this State, the Court may call upon an applicant either to furnish security, to the satisfaction of the Court for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant or that realised by the sale, whichever is less, or to deposit such amount in Court. In the present case, the applicant made an application to dispense with security, or in any event, to accept immovable property offered by him as security. The only order passed on that application was as follows:
Heard in open Court. Cash security to be furnished.
It is quite clear that in the First Proviso to Order 21, Rule 90, the Court has got a discretion at two stages:
(1) at the stage of admitting the application when he may or may not call upon the applicant to furnish security, or to deposit any amount; and
(2) When, the Court decides that security or deposit is necessary, in which case the Court should decide whether to direct a deposit or permit the applicant to furnish security. The learned Judge in this case apparently has not dealt with the matter bearing in mind the effect of this proviso. He does not give any reason why he directs cash security. The language itself is very inapt. If it is cash, it would be a deposit of the amount mentioned in the sale warrant, or the amount realised by the sale. It would not be security.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, allowed and the application made by the petitioner before the lower Court shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with the observations in this judgment. No order as to costs.