Judgment : S. P. Srivastava, J. 1. The defendant-petitioner feels aggrieved by an order passed in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act whereunder holding that the application filed by him seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree was not maintainable, the order passed by the trial court setting aside the ex. parte decree has been reversed restoring the ex. parte decree passed against the petitioners. 2. I have heard Sri H. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the plaintiff-respondents and have carefully perused the record. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit praying for a decree of ejectment against the defendant- petitioner and for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages pendente lite and future. This suit was decreed ex parte by the trial court on 25-1-79. The trial court had decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the accommodation in dispute and a decree for recovery of Rs. 2012. 62 P., as arrears of rent and damages and the water-tax besides a decree in respect of pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per month till the date of ejectment of the defendant or for a period of three years whichever was later had also been granted. 3. THE defendant had moved an application on 31-5-79 praying for the setting aside of the ex parte decree. However, he deposited only an amount of Rs. 2012. 62 P., in compliance to the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. THE plaintiff objected to the maintainability of the application seeking setting aside of the ex. parte decree on the ground that the requirement of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act had not been complied with. While considering this aspect of the matter the trial court observed that since the entire money for which the decree had been put into execution had been deposited, there was sufficient compliance of the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and proceeded to dispose of the application on merits. While considering this aspect of the matter the trial court observed that since the entire money for which the decree had been put into execution had been deposited, there was sufficient compliance of the requirement of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and proceeded to dispose of the application on merits. It was indicated that the defendant will be taken to have deposited the entire money that was due under the decree since the plaintiff himself had put the decree in execution claiming only the amount which stood deposited. 4. THE order of the trial court setting aside the ex. parte decree was challenged in revision. THE revisional court, however, was of the view that the amount of pendente lite and future damages in respect whereof the decree had been passed by the trial court had to be taken to be amount due under the decree but inasmuch as the said amount had not been deposited by the defendant there could be no justification for holding that the entire money due under the decree had been deposited. In the aforesaid view of the matter the revisional court set aside the order passed by the trial court maintaining the ex parte decree holding that the application filed by the defendant seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree was not legally maintainable in the absence of compliance of the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that since the entire amount which was sought to be recovered by the plaintiff as due under the decree which is evident from the application seeking execution of the decree filed by him had been deposited, the revisional court should not have interfered in the order passed by the trial court holding the application to be maintainable. It has further been urged that in any view of the matter the plaintiff had not initiated the execution proceedings in respect of the amount of pendente lite and future damages and had not paid any court fee therefor, with the result that the said amount could not be deemed to have become due under the decree. 5. It has further been urged that in any view of the matter the plaintiff had not initiated the execution proceedings in respect of the amount of pendente lite and future damages and had not paid any court fee therefor, with the result that the said amount could not be deemed to have become due under the decree. 5. THE learned counsel for the contesting respondent, however, urged that the mere fact that the decree-holder had applied for execution of the decree claiming a lesser amount than actually due under the decree could not entitle the defendant to deposit a lesser amount than the amount due under the decree. It has further been contended that in the present case the defendant had not even furnished security for the remaining amount and the intention was apparent that he did not want to deposit the full amount due under the decree. 6. THIS Court in its decision in the case of Krishna Chandra Saxena v. Dr. K. P. Agrawal, and another, reported in 1988 (1) ARC 445 after considering the various decisions had clarified that a defendant was required to deposit the amount of pendente lite, mesne profit also inspite of the fact that no court fee had been paid by the plaintiff for the same. The ratio of the aforesaid decision stands clearly attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant was not required to deposit the amount of pendente lite and future damages in respect whereof a decree had been passed against him, is not at all acceptable as the said amount had to be treated as due under the decree. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that since the plaintiff himself had applied for recovering a lesser amount as due under the decree, and, therefore, the defendant could deposit a lesser amount for the purposes of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act is also not acceptable as what amount is due under the decree has to be determined not on the basis of what is claimed by the plaintiff in execution proceedings but on the basis of what the decree itself provides. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in any view of the matter the provision as contained in the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act being a procedural provision is to be taken to be only directory in nature. In support of this submission the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Suresh Chand v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, reported in 1991 ARC (2) page 545 wherein it has been held that even if the requirement contemplated under the proviso of Section 17 of the Act is complied with upto the date of the entertainment of the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree, the said compliance has to be taken as sufficient ground. It may be noticed that the proviso contemplates depositing of the money due under the decree or furnishing the security for the same at the time of presentation of the application. This part relating to the time of deposit was held to be directory holding that this could be done even up to the stage of entertainment of the application that is when the same was going to be considered on merits. 7. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Qazi Nemat Ullah v. VIth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur and others, reported in 1993 (1) ARC 151 in which decision also the provision in regard to the deposit of the money due under the decree or filing of the security for the same prior to the presentation of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was held to be directory and clarifying that in case the requirement was complied with by the time the application was taken up for consideration the requirement should be taken to have been satisfied. 8. BOTH the aforesaid decisions cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner inasmuch as no effort was made by the petitioner to comply with the requirement of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act either by depositing the balance amount due under the decree or furnishing a security in respect thereof even by the time the said application was taken up for consideration. In view of my aforesaid conclusions the requirements contemplated under the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act in regard to the deposit of the amount due under the decree or furnishing security for the same which are of a mandatory nature cannot be deemed to have been satisfied and the view taken by the revisional court in this regard appears to be in accordance with law. The trial court had clearly exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it while setting aside the ex parte decree even though the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act in regard to the deposit of the amount due under the decree or furnishing security in respect thereof had not been satisfied. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was not maintainable in law so as to be considered on merit and was liable to be rejected. The error committed by the trial court has been corrected by the revisional court. 9. CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances indicated hereinabove, no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.