JUDGMENT : R.B. Mehrotra, J. A small causes suit has been filed by the present Respondents No. 3 to 7, who are admittedly the landlords of the premises in dispute against the Petitioners, who are admittedly the tenants. For convenience, the Respondents are hereinafter described as 'Plaintiffs' and the Petitioners are hereinafter described as 'Defendants'. The suit was filed for the relief of a decree for ejectment of the Defendants from the premises in dispute and also for rent and mesne profits alongwith water-tax. 2. The Plaintiffs obtained an exparte decree against the Defendants on 30-3-87. The Defendants claim that they came to know of the said exparte decree on 5-5-87 and immediately on the next day i.e. on 6-5-87 they moved an application, supported by an affidavit, wherein, the' Defendants stated that they had no knowledge of the said suit, as the Defendants were never served with any summons and the said exparte decree has been obtained without service of any summons on the Defendants. On 14-5-87. the Defendants moved an application for complying with the proviso of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this application, the Defendants stated that a money-order has been sent of Rs. 975/- towards rent of the house, which has been received by the Plaintiffs during the course of the suit. As such, the Defendants should be permitted only to execute a personal bond for compliance of proviso to Section 17 of the Act. Alongwith application, a photostat copy of the original receipt of the money-order for Rs. 975/-, showing receipt of the aforesaid amount by the Plaintiffs on 21-4-86, was filed. The trial court, vide its order dated 14-5-87, permitted the Defendants to deposit half of the decretal amount in cash and security for half of the decretal amount by 10-7-87. However, before the aforesaid date i.e. 10-7-87, the Defendants moved an application on 26-5-87 that the Plaintiffs' suit has been decreed exparte on 30-3-87, wherein the Plaintiffs had admitted the receipt of a sum of Rs. 975/- from the Defendants on account of rent and mesne profits during the pendency of the case but the said amount has not been adjusted in preparing the exparte decree. As such, the exparte decree, may be amended suo-moto. 975/- from the Defendants on account of rent and mesne profits during the pendency of the case but the said amount has not been adjusted in preparing the exparte decree. As such, the exparte decree, may be amended suo-moto. In the aforesaid background on 10-7-87, the Defendants moved another application, saying that so far as the rent is concerned, the Defendants have paid the rent but the exact amount of the decree is not being ascertained. The original record may be summoned, so that the Defendants may deposit the full amount. On the said application, the court directed the original file to be summoned, fixing 23-7-87. On 23-7-87 the court granted one week's time for complying with the court's order dated 14-5-87. On 30-7-87 an application was moved on behalf of the Defendants, seeking one month's time for depositing the decretal amount on the ground that the Defendant Masih Das had fallen ill on the said date. The application was allowed and 15 days' time was granted to the Defendants for complying with the court's order dated 14 5-87. On 4-8-87 the Defendants deposited a sum of Rs. 590.25 paise in cash and furnished security for a sum of Rs. 590.25 paise, which was duly accepted by the trial court. The trial court issued notice on Defendants' application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to the Plaintiffs and also stayed further proceedings in execution case for ejectment of the Defendants. The Defendants claim that the notice was issued to the Plaintiffs, after the trial court was satisfied that proviso of Section 17 of the Act has been complied with. 3. The Plaintiffs contested the said application on the ground that the Defendants' application, under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is barred by time. It was also contended that the summons were duly served on the Defendants and there is no justification for setting aside the exparte decree. 4. For completing the narration of facts, two facts may also be noticed, that the Defendants' application dated 26-5-87 for correction of the decree due to the error of the court was ultimately allowed some time in July 1988 and the decree was corrected on 22-8-88, and an application was moved on 13-5-88 on behalf of the Defendants for condonation of delay in depositing the balance of decretal amount if any, and a sum of Rs. 186/-was deposited with the stipulation that if any amount is found short on the basis of the correction of the decree, the said amount may be permitted to be deposited- 5. The Judge, Small Causes Court, vide order dated 4-10-88, rejected the Defendants' application for setting aside exparte decree both on the ground, that the Defendants have failed to prove that they got information of the exparte decree on 5-5-87, and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was not maintainable for non-compliance of proviso of Section 17 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Defendants preferred a revision. The revisional court in its judgment dated 29-4-89. held that the Defendants have proved that no summons of the suit were served on them and the Defendants came to know of the exparte decree on 5-5-87 and moved application for setting aside exparte decree next day i.e. on 6-5-87. The Defendants' application for setting aside the exparte decree was within time 7. However, the revisional court upheld the view of the Judge, Small Causes Court that the Defendants have failed to comply with the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act. 8. The Defendants have challenged the aforesaid judgments of the Judge Small Causes Court as well as of the revisional court and have also challenged the exparte decree, passed against them, by means of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Defendants' counsel has made following submissions : Firstly, that the Defendants have sent money-order of Rs. 975/-to-wards rent which was admitted to the Plaintiffs. The experte decree was passed by the court, ignoring the aforesaid admission As such, the amount should have been adjusted before judging the compliance of the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act If the said amount would have been adjusted in the decretal amount, the defents duty com-plied with the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act within the time allowed by the court. Secondly, the court having itself permitted the Defendants to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act and the Defendants having complied with the said requirement within time allowed by the court, the courts below were not justified in taking a view that the court had no jurisdiction to grant time for compliance of proviso to Section 17 of the Act It is a settled proposition of law that no party should suffer for the mistake of the court. Thirdly in any case the decree was corrected by the court as late as on 22-8-88 As such, the court should have examined that the short fall, if any could have been condoned on the Defendants' application for condonation of delay given in the month of May, 1988. 10. The Plaintiffs' counsel has mainly contended that an application, under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC shall be deemed to be filed only on the date the judgment debtor complies with the requirement of Section 17 of the Act. There is no power with the court for extending time for complying with the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of The Act. The counsel contended that the application for condonation of delay was given as late as on 13-5-88 and there was no justification for this inordinate delay. The court below rightly rejected the said application and rightly held that there was no proper application moved on the Part of Defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC read with proviso to Section 17 of the Act within time. 11. The revisional court, while dismissing the Defendants' revision held that even though the trial court had no jurisdiction to extend time for complying with the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act, still the Defendants should not be penalised for the mistake of the court and it may be held that the Defendants were entitled to comply with the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act latest by 10-7-87 but the Defendants failed to comply with the said requirement even on 10-7-87 There was no justification for the Defendants to have sought further time on 10-7-87 for complying with the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act. The and 30-7-87, whereby time was advantage of the court's order dated 23-7-87 and 30-7-87, whereby time was further extended for complying with the court's order dated 14-5-87. The revisional court also held that there was no justification for the Defendants to have not complied with the court's order dated 14-5-87 by 10-7-87, as it was open to the Defendants to have ascertained the exact decretal amount by 10-7-07 and should have complied with the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act latest by 10-7-87. 12. The revisional court also held that the amount deposited and the security furnished by the Defendants to the extent of Rs. 1180.50 paise was not the full decretal amount, as the amount of mesne profits was not calculated m depositing the said amount. The said amount was short of the amount required to be deposited under the proviso of Section 17 of the Act. While deciding the aforesaid point, against the Defendants the revisional court observed that it is true that the decree was amended in the month of July 1988, according to which, some amount was added in the decree on the basis of water-tax and some amount was reduced from the decree on the basis of the rent, received by the Plaintiffs during the course of the suit. However, the Defendants did not claim any benefit for adjusting the aforesaid amount in the month of July 1987, while seeking compliance of proviso to Section 17 of the Act. 13. At the outset, it may be stated that the first finding, recorded by the revisional court, that the Defendants cannot be given any advantage of the court's order dated 23-7-87 and 30-7-87 is patently contrary to its own finding, recorded earlier that no party should be punished for the fault of the court. The revisional court having itself held that even though the court had no jurisdiction to extend time for compliance of the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act the Defendant should not suffer for the mistake of the court, in the same breath, the revisional court held contrary, taking a view that even though, the court granted time to the Defendants for compliance of the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act, the Defendants cannot be given advantage of the same. The two findings are patently contradictory to each other. 14. The two findings are patently contradictory to each other. 14. The revisional court was also not correct in taking a view that the Defendants did not claim any advantage of the amount of rent, sent by the Defendants during the course of suit and received by the Plaintiffs, during the course of the suit in April 1986, whereas the record clearly shows that the Defendants categorically stated in their application dated 14-5-87 that they have already sent the rent to the Plaintiffs and the said rent has been received by the Plaintiffs during the course of the suit. As such only personal bond should be taken from the Defendants. The fact of sending the rent of Rs. 975/- by the Defendants and receipt of the aforesaid amount by the Plaintiffs, was clearly stated by the Defendants in their application dated 14-5-87. The courts below failed to take notice of the said fact. In any case, the decree of the suit was amended in the month of July, 1988 u/s 152 of CPC and the court should have taken the said fact into account, while deciding the question, as to whether the Defendants duly complied with the proviso to Section 17 of the Act by depositing half of the decretal amount of Rs. 590.25 paise and furnishing security for remaining 590 25 paise. The revisional court has failed to take the said fact into consideration. 15. In Hukum Khan v. Ist Addl. District Judge, Nainital 1983 ALJ 737, the judgment debtor deposited the decretal amount and furnished security as per directions of the court within the extended time and the trial court accepted the security bond as sufficient and issued notice to the decree-holder. The decree-holder objected that the security was short by certain amount. Thereafter the court permitted the tenant to furnish the security of the said amount. The direction of the court was complied with by the judgment debtor. A division Bench of this Court held in the aforesaid case that as the court had approved deposit of cash and security offered by the judgment-debtor, the court had jurisdiction to extend the time for furnishing any security. The Division Bench further held in this case. The direction of the court was complied with by the judgment debtor. A division Bench of this Court held in the aforesaid case that as the court had approved deposit of cash and security offered by the judgment-debtor, the court had jurisdiction to extend the time for furnishing any security. The Division Bench further held in this case. If the court delayed in giving its direction or approving expressly or impliedly the security already tendered, so long that the period of limitation had expired before the applicant had fair opportunity of complying with the direction, then in a suitable case it would be open to the Court itself to consider and exercise the inherent powers reserved to it by Section 151. 16. In Smt. Mohammadi v. Smt. Abna Begum 1985 ALJ 838, a single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid Division Bench decision held;- Once an application u/s 17 of the Small Causes Courts Act was preferred in time, there is sufficient compliance. Party is not to suffer due to any error of the Court. While accepting the bond the court should have examined whether there is any deficiency or shortage in cash deposit or in the amount of security and whether it would prefer to have another bond or seek registration of the bond already furnished. 17. In Smt. Ram Piyari v. Budh Sen 1977 ALJ 998, this Court held: In view of this changed legal position, the view that the two necessary conditions required by Section 17, namely, a direction of the Court for the furnishing of security and the actual furnishing of the security should be complied with within the prescribed period of limitation otherwise the application will not be a proper application, does not represented an accurate position in law It is well settled that if the two conditions are not fulfilled at the time when application is actually presented, there would be substantial compliance with the proviso if the conditions are satisfied before the expiry of the period of limitation, because: The applicant cannot be in a worse position in such a case than if his application had been rejected or returned to him, and he had filed a fresh application. To require of him to file a fresh application after he had fulfilled the two conditions would be a futile act. To require of him to file a fresh application after he had fulfilled the two conditions would be a futile act. The application already kept pending by the court an be treated as having been presented after the conditions have been fulfilled. In this view of the matter, the application in the present case although presented on 4-2-1949, would be deemed to have been duly presented on 9-2-1949 when the security bond was filed and since this was done within the period of limitation, it substantially complied with the provisions of Section 17. (Vide Mt. Bipti Vs. Kali Din, AIR 1951 All 420 . The same principle would be applicable even if the condition is fulfilled after the expiry of the period of limitation. The result would be that the application can be deemed to have been presented on that day even though by that time the period of limitation may have expired. In that event the question for determination would be whether there was sufficient cause within meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, because under the 1963 Act Section 5 does become applicable. Previously in this State Section 5 was not applicable at all. 18. Sri S. K. Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondents, however placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Ibrahim Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and Others, AIR 1973 All 378 . 2. Zahir Hasan v. Ist Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur 1980 All RC 342. 3. Swami Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. 1981 ALJ 1104. 4. Shanti Prasad Gupta Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp at Meerut and Others. 19. The gist of the aforesaid decisions is that the court has no jurisdiction to give time for compliance of the requirement of Section 17 of the Act and that as application under order 9 rule 13 of the CPC is not maintainable unless the provisions of proviso to Section 17 of the Act is complied with. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions it has been contended before me by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that at best the application for recalling the exparte decree moved by the Petitioner can be treated to have been moved on the date Petitioner complied with the requirement of Section 17 of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions it has been contended before me by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that at best the application for recalling the exparte decree moved by the Petitioner can be treated to have been moved on the date Petitioner complied with the requirement of Section 17 of the Act. It was open to the Petitioners to move an application for condonation of delay on the date the Petitioners deposited the security and cash amount i.e. on 4-8-1987. The Petitioner did not move any such application. The court itself had no authority to extend time permitting the Petitioners to comply with Section 17 of the Act. The Petitioners for the first time have moved an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act on 13-5-1988 i.e., after lapse of nine months of the date of deposit made by the Petitioners. There is no explanation worth the same for explaining the delay of nine months, as such the courts below were justified in rejecting the said application. The counsel for the Respondent also contended that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the deposit made by the Defendants on 4-8-1987 was not in accordance with proviso to Section 17 of the Act, as such this Court should not interfere with the aforesaid findings. It was also contended that the Defendants did not comply with the requirement of Section 17 of the Act, as the said deposit was not for the full amount due against the Defendants under the decree of the court at the time of the presenting their application. As such, even on 4-8-1987, Section 17 of the Act was not complied with and the court below committed no error in rejecting the Petitioners' application under Order 9 rule 13 of CPC on the aforesaid ground. 20. On the basis of the law laid down by this Court, it is made out that no party should be penalised for the mistake of the court. In the present case, admittedly the court granted time to the Defendants to comply with the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act and the requirement was so complied with by the Defendants within the time allowed by the court and on being satisfied that the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act has been complied with, the court issued notice to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants cannot be non-suited on the basis that the court had no authority to give time. Even assuming that the court had no authority to extend time for complying with the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act, at best it can be taken that under the orders of the court, the Defendant complied with the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act on 4-8-1987, as such, the court impliedly exercised its powers of condonation of delay, in moving application under Order 9, rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure. In case the Court would not have extended time, the Defendants could have managed to comply with the orders of the court within the stipulated period. The court having itself granted time, the Defendants cannot be told later on that you are not entitled to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act. even though, the court has permitted you to comply with the said requirement. In any case, the revisional court has also noticed that the Defendants did move an application for condonation of delay The said application should not have been rejected on the ground that there is no valid explanation for moving application as late as on 13-5-88. The Defendants gave explanation that a sum of Rs. 975/-, which the Plaintiffs received during the pendency of the suit, which the Plaintiffs admitted in their statement, should have been adjusted in the decree and the decree should have been prepared after adjusting the aforesaid amount. Due to delay in the correction of the decree, the Defendants failed to comply with the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act. The Defendants were claiming adjustment of the aforesaid amount right from the very beginning. The revisional court was not right in saying that the Defendants did not claim the benefit of the adjustment of the said amount in July, 1987. This observation of the revisional court is patently contrary to record. 21. From the above discussion, it is clear that the revisional court has not approached the problem from the correct angle. The revisional court was not right in saying that the Defendants did not claim the benefit of the adjustment of the said amount in July, 1987. This observation of the revisional court is patently contrary to record. 21. From the above discussion, it is clear that the revisional court has not approached the problem from the correct angle. The revisional court has not taken into account the fact that there was no fault on the part of the Defendants in complying with the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act within the time allowed by the court: The revisional court having itself held that the Defendants should not be penalised for the mistake of the court, there was no justification for the revisional court to have taken a view that after 10-7-87, the Defendants could not have taken advantage of the courts' order. 22. The revisional court also failed to take into consideration that the Defendants were claiming adjustment of Rs. 975/- towards compliance of the requirement of proviso to Section 17 of the Act right from the very beginning. The said amount should have been adjusted in the decree, is clear from the fact that the said decree has been amended by the court itself in exercise of powers u/s 152 of Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held by the trial court itself that it was due to mistake of the court that a wrong decree was prepared. If the correct decree would have been prepared, the said amount would have been adjusted in the decree and if the said amount would have adjusted in the said decree, still can it be held that the Defendants failed to deposit the requisite amount and failed to furnish security of the requisite amount, as per directions of the court even on 4-8-87. All these matters require-re-consideration of the revisional court. The judgment of the revisional court apparently suffers from the errors pointed out in this judgment. As such, the order of the revisional court is liable to be set aside. The matter may be remanded back to be decided afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 23. I accordingly set aside the order of XIII Additional District Judge, Bareilly dated 29-4-89, passed in SCC revision No. 17 of 1988 Smt. Masih Das and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Saxena and Ors. The matter may be remanded back to be decided afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 23. I accordingly set aside the order of XIII Additional District Judge, Bareilly dated 29-4-89, passed in SCC revision No. 17 of 1988 Smt. Masih Das and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Saxena and Ors. and remand back the matter to revisional court for deciding the Defendants revision afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 24. The parties will bear their own costs. 25. Record of the courts below be immediately sent back.