Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.:— This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30. 09. 2011, by which the Learned Revisional Court has allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 09. 11. 2009 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balrampur in miscellaneous Case No. 68 of 2007. 2. Brief facts, relevant for the purposes of deciding this petition, are that respondent No. 2 filed SCC suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages of use and occupation bearing SCC suit No. 1 of 2007, which was ex-parte decreed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balrampur vide judgment and decree dated 24. 08. 2007. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex-parte decree under order IX Rule XIII C. P. C. which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide order dated 09. 11. 2009, by which the ex-parte decree was set aside, subject to deposit of Rs. 3780/- as rent/damages, 50 per cent of which was directed to be deposited. The respondent/landlord challenged this order before the Learned District Judge through SCC revision No. 30 of 2009, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Balrampur vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2011, on the ground that the tenant/petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 17 of Small Causes Courts Act. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the records. 4. It is needless to say that the provisions contained in Section 17 of Small Causes Courts Act, as produced below, are mandatory, in nature. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the records. 4. It is needless to say that the provisions contained in Section 17 of Small Causes Courts Act, as produced below, are mandatory, in nature. "Application of the Code of Civil Procedure-(1) The procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1906, shall, save insofar as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes in' all suits cognizable 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 judgment 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 judgment, or give such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may, or a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed. (2) Where a person has become liable as surety under the proviso to subsection (i), the security may be realized in manner provided by Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. " 5. There is no reason to raise any doubt that the nature of the proviso is not mandatory and directory. ?? The matter has been dealt with the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kedar Nath v. Mohan Lal Kesarwari and Others [2002 (20) LCD 551:2002(1) ARC 186], in which Hon'ble Apex Court has traced the law. on the point laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan v. Khubi Khan AIR 1938 Lahore 18 up to Beena Khare v. VIIIth ADJ, Allahabad, 20002 ARC 616, and has reached to the conclusion that right from pre-independent days, the law is being constantly followed that the provisions contained in Section 17 are mandatory in nature and even the nobility of the Court cannot dissolve the mandatory nature of the provisions. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in/Cedar Nath's case (supra) that:- "A bare reading of the provision shows that the legislature have chosen to couch the language of the proviso in a mandatory form and we see no reason to interpret, construe and hold the nature of the proviso as directory. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in/Cedar Nath's case (supra) that:- "A bare reading of the provision shows that the legislature have chosen to couch the language of the proviso in a mandatory form and we see no reason to interpret, construe and hold the nature of the proviso as directory. An application seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree passed by a Court of Small Causes or for a review of its judgment must be accompanied by a deposit in the court of the amount due from the applicant under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment. The provision as to deposit can be dispensed with by the court in its discretion subject to a previous application by the applicant seeking direction of the court for leave to furnish security and the nature thereof. The proviso does not provide for the extent of time by which such application for dispensation may be filed. We think that it may be filed at any time up to the time of presentation of application for setting aside ex-parte decree or for review and the Court may treat it as a previous application. The obligation of the applicant is to move a previous application for dispensation. It is then for the court to make a prompt order. The delay on the part of the court in passing an appropriate order would not be held against the applicant because none can be made to suffer for the fault of the court. " 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the law laid down by this Court in Akttaryar Khan v. A. Y. Khan 1994 (12) LCD 415:1993 (2) ARC259. But, I am helpless this authority is not applicable to the facts of this case, probably, learned counsel for the petitioner could not understand the circumstances under which this judgment was passed by this Court. 7. With these observation, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. _____________