https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468991 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. en-us Thu, 09 Mar 1939 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2026 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468991 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Mar 1939 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468991