Order XXI Rule 90 CPC security deposit need not be made within limitation; compliance is required before the application is heard.

Under the proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90 CPC, a judgment-debtor need not deposit the required security within the limitation period for filing an application to set aside a sale. The proviso was construed as requiring compliance before the application is entertained and decided, not as a bar that makes the application time-barred if the deposit is made later. The earlier single-judge view treating deposit within limitation as mandatory was overruled, and the later Division Bench view was followed. The matter was remitted so the applicant could comply with the proviso and the application could be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment-debtor was required to deposit the security within the limitation period for filing the application to set aside the sale, or whether such compliance could be made before the application was taken up for consideration.

Analysis: The proviso was construed as requiring compliance before the application is entertained and adjudicated upon, not as making the application time-barred merely because the security was not deposited within the period allowed for filing the application. The earlier single-judge view treating such deposit as a condition to be fulfilled within limitation was held to be overruled. The later Division Bench view was followed, and the contrary observation in another decision was treated as obiter.

Conclusion: The security did not have to be deposited within the limitation period for filing the application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the revision was allowed and the matter was remitted for giving the applicant an opportunity to comply with the proviso and for deciding the application on merits.

---