JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - Defendant-revisionist Raj Kumar Singh (tenant) has revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the order dated 2-3-1990 of the Addl District Judge, Agra dismissing the application of the revisionist under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. read with Section 17 of the Act. 2. Parties have exchanged affidavits. 3. The plaintiff-respondent Shakuntala Devi (the landlady) filed a suit No. 20 of 1989 on 28/30-3-89 for arrears of rent and ejectment of the revisionist-tenant in respect of a quarter situated at Kamla Nagar Agra in the suit 19-4-89 was fixed for filing written statement by the revisionist-tenant and 26-4-89 was fixed for hearing. On 19-4-89 the Court ordered for ex-parte proceedings as the defendant-revisionist did not file the written statement nor he appeared. The order of ex-parte proceedings was set aside on the application of the revisionist. He moved an application for filing written statement. The case was adjourned to 29-5-89. On that date the written statement was to be hied by the defendant-revisionist but it was not done. On the other hand an application for adjournment was moved by him on the same date on the ground of illness of his counsel. The application was rejected and the Court ordered the proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. The Court passed a decree for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the defendant-tenant on 29-5-89. It is annexed as Annexure-2 to the revision petition. 4. On 30-5-89 the defendant-revisionist moved an application under Order XLI Rule 5 C. P. C. before the same court for staying the execution and to allow him to bring stay order from the High Court on its reopening in July 1989. 5. On 31-5-89 the defendant-revisionist moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. (Annexure-5) for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 29-5-89 along with an application for stay of execution before the with Add], District Judge, Agra who had passed the decree. The court ordered the office to give report on the same day. Thereafter the file was put up before the Presiding Officer on 13-7-89 on which date the court issued a warning to the concerned official for not putting up the file on 31-5-89 before him despite the orders. The court ordered the office to give report on the same day. Thereafter the file was put up before the Presiding Officer on 13-7-89 on which date the court issued a warning to the concerned official for not putting up the file on 31-5-89 before him despite the orders. On 13.7.89 the court ordered to register the application and issue notice to the opposite party for filing objection. In the meantime the plaintiff-opposite party (landlady) moved an application on 3-7-89 for execution of the ex-parte decree. In the execution proceedings, the application which was moved by the defendant-revisionist on 30-5-89 under Order XLI Rule 5 C. P. C. for execution proceedings, was taken up and considered by the execution court. That application was rejected on 10-7-89. On 11-7-89 the defendant-revisionist pressed before the execution court that he had already moved an application for setting aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. on 31-5-89 and the said application is not traceable, despite the fact that entry of the application is available in the Syaka Register of the court. On the same date the court on the ground that such application had been moved though it was not traceable in the office, passed the order that the execution proceedings shall remain stayed in case the defendant-tenant deposited the decretal amount in court in seven days positively, failing which the execution was to proceed on The defendant-tenant deposited Rs. 13,000/- on the execution side as decreetal amount after obtaining a tender duly signed by the court for making the deposit. In the execution application which filed on 3-7-89, the amount claimed under the decree was a total sum of Rs. 12,760,05 p. 6. As already mentioned, the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. on being traced out in the office was placed before the court on 18-7-89. The court ordered that the decreetal amount having been deposited by the Judgement-debtor, the execution of the decree shall continue to remain stayed. 7. Thereafter the application of the defendant-tenant (the revisionist) moved under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. G, read with Section 17 of the Act was rejected by the same court on 2-3-1990 holding that the requirement of deposit of the decreetal amount as per Section 17 (1) of the Act has not been complied with by the defendant-tenant. 7. Thereafter the application of the defendant-tenant (the revisionist) moved under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. G, read with Section 17 of the Act was rejected by the same court on 2-3-1990 holding that the requirement of deposit of the decreetal amount as per Section 17 (1) of the Act has not been complied with by the defendant-tenant. The present revision petition is directed against that order. 8. The procedure for making an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. stands modified in its application to a case for setting aside ex-parte decree passed by the court of Small Causes. Section 17 of the Act lays down the provision in this regard. It runs as under : "17 Application of the Code of Civil Procedure. - -(1) The procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes in all suits cognisable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits ; Provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex-parte or for a review of Judgement shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the Judgement, or give such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the Judgement as the Court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed. (2) Whereas person has become liable as surety under the proviso to sub-section (1), the security may be realised in manner provided by Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." 9. The proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act thus lays down that at the time of the presentation of The application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. there must be the deposit of the amount decreed or security tor the same amount should be furnished and in the absence of it the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C will not be maintainable before -the Court of Small Causes. This is a mandatory provision, the non-compliance of which is to result in the failure of application itself for setting aside the ex-parte decree. This is a mandatory provision, the non-compliance of which is to result in the failure of application itself for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Similar view has been taken up by this Court in the earlier cases, Krishna Kumar v. Hakim Mohammad Umar, (1978 ALJ 738), Mamta Sharma v. Hari Shanker Srivastava and others, (1988) (1) Allahabad Rent Cases 341. 10. In the instant case the defendant-tenant has no doubt filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. on 31-5-89 i.e., within two days of the passing of the ex-parte decree but at the time of presentation of that application he had neither deposited, nor furnished security in the court for the decreetal amount, Admittedly, the sum of Rs. 13,000 which was deposited by him in connection with the decree, was deposited by him on 12-7-89. This was done in the execution proceedings The impugned order for rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the proviso to Section 17 (1) in this regard is correct and sustainable. 11. From the side of the defendant-revisionist it is set out in the affidavit that along with the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. he had filed the tender for depositing decreetal amount. This is controverted in the counter affidavit filed from the side of the respondent. Further the copy of the order sheet of the case filed as Annexure-6 to the application under Section 151 C P.O. also goes to indicate that no tender for depositing the amount was filed by the defendant-tenant on 31-5-89. Hence there was not even an offer made from the side of the defendant-tenant to deposit the decreetal amount when the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was presented on 31-5-89. It is not a case in which furnishing of security for the decreetal amount was sought for by the defendant-tenant or ordered by the court. As already mentioned, the deposit of the amount relating to the decree was made as late as on 12-7-89 and which was done in the execution proceedings. 12. It is not a case in which furnishing of security for the decreetal amount was sought for by the defendant-tenant or ordered by the court. As already mentioned, the deposit of the amount relating to the decree was made as late as on 12-7-89 and which was done in the execution proceedings. 12. The fact that application of the defendant-revisionist under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. which was filed before the court on 31-5-89 was not put up with office report on the same date despite the order of the court and the fact that the application was subsequently found misplaced and seems to have been traced out on or about 18-7-89 will not absolve the revisionist from discharging the mandatory requirement of depositing the decreetal amount at the time of presentation of the application on 31-5-89 under proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act. The defendant-tenant cannot escape from the consequences of his default. 13. The proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act requires the deposit of the amount due under the decree which is sought to be set aside. The amount under the decree dated 29-5-89 includes the sum of Rs. 10,170/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, a sum of Rs. 250/-, Rs. 32/- per month as damages for use and occupation pendente lite till the possession is delivered to the plaintiff-respondent together with costs of the suit. On calculating the entire amount accordingly till 12-7-89 on which date the amount which was to the time of Rs. 13,000/- was deposited by the defendant-tenant in the court executed the sum Rs. 13,000/- and consequently the amount deposited under the decree was short of the amount which was required to be deposited under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act. This remains the position despite the fact that the lower court appears to have made an error in calculating the decretal amount. According to the calculation of the decretal amount furnished by the defendant-revisionist in addition to the specific amount of Rs. 10,170/- decreed by the court, Rs. 1919.50 was payable as costs of the suit. Pendente lite and future interest from the date of filing the suit, i.e., 28/30-3-89 till the date of deposit of the decretal amount made on 12-7-89 at the rate of 9 per cent comes to not less than Rs. 10,170/- decreed by the court, Rs. 1919.50 was payable as costs of the suit. Pendente lite and future interest from the date of filing the suit, i.e., 28/30-3-89 till the date of deposit of the decretal amount made on 12-7-89 at the rate of 9 per cent comes to not less than Rs. 263/-, the mesne profits, pendente lite till 12-7-89 would be not less than Rs. 968/- at the decreed rate of Rs. 282.50 p. per month. Thus, the total amount due under the decree when the Deposit was made on 12-7-9,was much more than Rs. 13,000/-. Therefore, the amount deposited on 12-7-89 was lesser than what should have been deposited in pursuance of the decree. In this view of the matter, the finding of the lower court that the amount deposited was short, cannot be said to be erroneous. There can be no doubt that under the terms of the decree the amount of mesne profits to be deposited by the defendant-tenant was to be calculated upon the date of actual deposit of the amount. Under the decree the future mesne profits were due to the plaintiff-landlady till she was put into possession of the property in suit and admittedly the decree including that of possession has been stayed under orders of court. 14. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in the circumstances, of the case, the defendant-tenant was entitled to condition of delay under the Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter of depositing decretal amount in the court. There seems to have been made no application in writing, nor any verbal request before the lower court concerned for seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The cases of Khalil v. 3rd Addl. District Judge Hardoi, (1987 Allahabad Rent Cases 37) and the case reported in AIR 1977 Allahabad 390 followed in the case of Khalil (Supra) were the cases in which the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was actually moved before the court in which application for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. read with Section 17 of the Act was pending. In the absence of such application or prayer, the lower court was not at all called upon to apply its mind to this aspect. 15. In the absence of such application or prayer, the lower court was not at all called upon to apply its mind to this aspect. 15. It is pointed out from the side of the revisionist that in the Judgement and order dated 29-5-89 the trial court after mentioning the absence of the defendant-tenant ordered that the case would be proceeding under order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. That Rule provides where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce Judgement against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit, and on the pronouncement of such Judgement, a decree shall be drawn up. Order IX Rule 6 provided that in the absence of the defendant who had been duly served with summons, the court could pass an order that the suit be heard ex-parte. Order XVII Rule 2 C.P.C. provided where on any date to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them failed to appear, the court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed under Order IX or make such other order as thought fit. The explanation to Rule 2 as well as addition made by Allahabad High Court to the same rule refer to the cases in which evidence or substantial portion of evidence has been recorded which was not the situation in the instant case in fact no evidence was recorded in the instant case, he date of 29-5-89 was fixed for the written statement/hearing of the case. The defendant-tenant as well as his counsel were absent on that date The entire proceedings of that date were undoubtely ex-parte proceedings. The suit could not proceed under Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C on merits, in a such the requirements of that Rule were not fulfilled. The suit proceeded ex-parte on 29-5-89 and the decree passed on that date was ex-parte decree. Such had been the stand of the defendant-revisionist who, in fact, moved application for setting aside, ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. and pressed it as such in this Court also. The suit proceeded ex-parte on 29-5-89 and the decree passed on that date was ex-parte decree. Such had been the stand of the defendant-revisionist who, in fact, moved application for setting aside, ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. and pressed it as such in this Court also. He has filed the revision on the ground that the application under Order IX Rule 13 C P.C. moved by him for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 29-5-89 was rejected by the lower court. AIR 1975 (Allahabad) 209 does not pertain to Order VIII Rule 19 C.P.C and is of little avail to the revisionist in this case. 16. Towards the end.of the arguments in the case, the revisionist moved an application for summoning the record of the Civil Revision No. 732 of 1989 filled by him against the opposite party in this Court and to hear and decide it along with this case. Through that Civil revision No. 732 of 1989 the revisionist has challenged the Judgement and decree dated 29-5-89 as no appeal could lie against the decree m question passed by the lower court as Court of Small Causes. The application was opposed by the opposite parties That revision (number 732 of 1989) does not raise the question of restoration of the suit after setting aside ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 17 of the Act and is not necessarily to be connected with or heard together with this revision petition that revision could very well be heard and decided separately. 17. The result is that the revision petition is dismissed and the interim order of stay is discharged. No order as to costs.