JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - This writ petition has been filed impugning the orders passed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 contained in Annexures 10 and 8 to the writ petition. Appearance has been put in by opposite party No. 3 Sri Afsar Hussain Zaidi, in person. He has also filed a counter affidavit. 2. The question involved in the petition is a short one and the parties have agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. 3. Opposite party No. 3 had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner. The suit appears to have been decreed ex parte. The petitioner then applied for setting aside ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Since the suit was decided by the Judge, Small Cause Court, compliance of Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act was required to be made. It appears that though the application was moved for setting aside the ex parte decree, but there was delay in compliance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The applicant moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in compliance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The application of the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was rejected by the Judge, Small Cause Court (Munsif West), Hardoi by means of order dated 2271985 on the ground, amongst others, of noncompliance of Section 17 of Small Cause Courts Act. While disposing of the matter, he also observed that so far the question of delay was concerned, it could not be condoned in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner then filed a revision before the District Judge, which was rejected by III Addl. District Judge by means of order dated 771986. The revisional court has also found that there was no strict compliance with Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. However, on the question of delay in making the compliance, the learned Additional District Judge has observed that There was no provision for condonation of delay in furnishing security as, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for Small Cause Court is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a case reported in AIR 1977 Allahabad, page 390. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a case reported in AIR 1977 Allahabad, page 390. The relevant discussion is in para 11 of the said judgment wherein it has been observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable. In view of the decision of this Court in the case mentioned above, the revisional court erred in observing that there was no provision for considering the question of condonation of delay in compliance with Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. This amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the court. 4. Since a question vital for decision of the court has not been considered by the revisional court, there is no option but to remand the case to revisional court for considering that aspect of the matter. It will be, however, open to the revisional court to consider the question of condonation of delay as it thinks proper on the basis of the material available on the record. 5. In view of the discussion held above, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by opposite party No. 1, contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition is set aside. The opposite party No. 1 shall restore the revision to its original number and dispose of the same in the light of observations made in this judgment. Since the matter relates to eviction from the premises in question, the opposite party No. 1 shall dispose of the case expeditiously. There would, however, be no order as to costs.