Shri Narayan Shukla, J.— Heard Mr Ram Lagan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.1.2012, passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur and judgment and order dated 5.2.2011 and 27.2.2008, passed by Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Sultanpur. The facts of the present case are that the Small Cause Court proceeded to pass judgment and decree on 27.2.2008 against the petitioner. On the basis of the said judgment, the respondent/ plaintiff also proceeded for execution of order. The petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act with the submission that he heard about the said judgment and decree by some persons, who were told by the respondent at first time only on 27th March, 2009. He immediately rushed to his counsel, who enquired and found that one Execution Case no.1 of 2008 has been filed against the petitioner, then on the same very date his counsel put in appearance in the said case and asked time to file objection in the execution proceedings in which the court fixed next date on 10.4.2009. On 30th March, 2009 his counsel inspected the record and came to know that some order has been passed on 27.2. 2008 against the petitioner. However, the petitioner's application has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that he failed to comply with the provisions of Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act which is mandatory. It is stated that the petitioner moved an application under Section 17 of the Act on 13.8.2009 and also an application offering the amount of rent which was accepted by the court below. In furtherance of which he also submitted the tender on the same very date which was accepted. It is not in dispute that he could not deposit the amount on that date. He deposited the amount only on 25.9.2009 i.e, after more than one month. The trial court rejected his application on the ground that he failed to deposit rent on the date of application. He filed revision. It is not in dispute that he could not deposit the amount on that date. He deposited the amount only on 25.9.2009 i.e, after more than one month. The trial court rejected his application on the ground that he failed to deposit rent on the date of application. He filed revision. The Court of Revision also dismissed the revision on the ground that this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court has come in clear terms that the provisions of Section 17 are mandatory, which 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 for performance of decree and the nature thereof. However, in the present case, neither the petitioner deposited the amount of rent on the date of submission of application under Order IX 9 Rule 13 nor did move any application to seek leave of the Court to furnish security for compliance of the judgment, on account of which the court of revision rejected the petitioner's revision which is under challenge. Before this Court also the petitioner failed to establish the compliance of Section 17 of the Act on the date of application moved under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Vs. Mohan Lal Kesarwani and others ( 2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 16 has held that the proviso of Section 17 of the Act is a mandatory form and the application seeking to set aside an ex parte decree, passed by the 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. Upon perusal of the record, it is very much clear that the petitioner did not make deposit on the date of application moved for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree rather he deposited the same after more than one month without seeking leave of the court. Upon perusal of the record, it is very much clear that the petitioner did not make deposit on the date of application moved for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree rather he deposited the same after more than one month without seeking leave of the court. Therefore, I am of the view that the courts below have rightly rejected the petitioner's application for setting aside the judgment and decree, passed against him. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. _