Order 21 Rule 90 deposit requirement applies before admission, not necessarily within filing period, and must allow opportunity to comply.

Order 21 Rule 90 CPC was construed as making the deposit requirement relevant to admission of the application, not its initial presentation. A deposit or security furnished after filing but before admission satisfied the proviso, and the Rule did not require that deposit to be made within the thirty-day filing period. The court was also not bound to reject the application at once for want of deposit; it had to give the applicant an opportunity to seek dispensation or make the deposit before admission. The application therefore could not be treated as incompetent or time-barred on that ground and had to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be treated as incompetent or time-barred merely because the required deposit was made after presentation but before admission, and whether the application had to be rejected forthwith for want of an accompanying deposit.

Analysis: The substituted proviso to Rule 90 was construed as regulating the admission of the application, not its presentation. The requirement of deposit was held to be satisfied if the amount or security was furnished before the Court admitted the application, and the Rule did not require the deposit to be made within the thirty-day limitation period prescribed for filing the application. It was further held that the Court was not bound to reject the application immediately for absence of deposit, but had to afford the applicant an opportunity to seek dispensation or make the required deposit before the stage of admission.

Conclusion: The application was not liable to be dismissed as incompetent or time-barred solely because the deposit was made after filing but before admission; the Courts below were required to hear it on merits.

---