JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Judge, S: Cause Court (respondent-2) dated .1.2.2013, rejecting the application (12-Ka) the petitioners for substituting the heirs of Smt. Kaushilya (opposite party) lithe application for setting aside ex parte decree and the application (67-C) for permitting to amend/add the heirs of Smt. Kaushilya in the aforesaid application and order of Additional District Judge dated 30.4.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioners, filed from the aforesaid order. 3. Smt. Nanhka Devi widow of Daya Ram filed as suit (registered as SCC Suit No. 38 of 1983) for arrears of rent and ejectment of Ram Narain (now represented by the petitioners) from house No. 47/1, situated at Bharat Kund,; Nandi Gram, pargana Haveli Awadh, district Faizabad on 27.8.1983. In the plaint, the plaintiff stated that she was landlord of the house in dispute and the defendant was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 30/. The defendant was not paying rent since 1.1.1978. The plaintiff, therefore, through notice dated 12.2.1983 terminated the tenancy of the defendant. In spite of notice being served, the defendant had neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. In the meantime Smt. Nanhka died on 19.7.1984. Smt. Kaushilya moved an application for substituting herself as an heir of Smt. Nanhka on 24.9.1984, which was allowed by Trial Court, by order dated 22.1.1985. After service of notice, the defendant did not appear before the Court. Trial Court, therefore, by order dated 21.2.1986 proceeded ex parte against the defendant. The defendant then appeared before the Court and filed an application dated 25.7.1986 for recall of the order dated 21.2.1986. The defendant did not press his application dated 25.7.1986. Trial Court rejected the application and recorded ex parte evidence of plaintiff. In the meantime Smt. Kaushilya died on 6.1.1987 and her husband, sons and daughters were substituted as her heirs on 14.10.1987. Thereafter Trial Court decreed the suit by ex parte judgment dated 16.8.1988. 4. The defendant filed an application (registered as Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990) for setting aside ex parte decree on 5.4.1990. In this application Smt. Kaushilya alone was arrayed as opposite party. Thereafter Trial Court decreed the suit by ex parte judgment dated 16.8.1988. 4. The defendant filed an application (registered as Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990) for setting aside ex parte decree on 5.4.1990. In this application Smt. Kaushilya alone was arrayed as opposite party. The defendant neither deposited decretal amount nor furnished security in this respect as required under Proviso to section 17 (1) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990 was dismissed in default on 23.4.1991. The defendant filed another application dated 26.4.1991 (registered as Misc. Case No. 63 of 1991) for recall of the order dated 23.4.1991, again arraying Smt. Kaushilya as the opposite party. The defendant moved an application dated 6.10.2001, for permitting him to furnish security of decretal amount, condoning delay. In this application, Smt. Kaushilya (deceased) was arrayed as the opposite party and her sons and daughters were arrayed as her heirs. 5. The defendant filed an application (12-Ka) dated 21.3.2003 under Order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 63 of 1991 for substituting the sons and daughters of Smt. Kaushilya, as her heirs. The contesting respondents filed an objection (66-C) to the application (12-Ka) stating therein that Smt. Kaushilya had died on 6.1.1987 and Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990 and Misc. Case No. 63 of 1991 were filed against dead person as such application for substitution under Order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C. would not be maintainable. Then the defendant filed another application (67-C) under Order I, Rule 10 read with Order VI, Rule 17 and section 151, C.P.C. for amending/adding the heirs of Smt. Kaushilya (opposite party) in this case on 5.1.2013. Both the applications were heard by Judge, Small Clauses Court (respondent-2) who by order dated 1.2.2013, held that as the case was filed against dead person as such substitution application under Order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C. was not be maintainable nor the heirs can be added under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. On these findings both the applications were rejected. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as SCC Revision No. 4 of 2014) from the aforesaid order. The revision was dismissed by Additional District Judge by the order dated 30.4.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defendant was an illiterate person and fully depended upon his Counsel. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as SCC Revision No. 4 of 2014) from the aforesaid order. The revision was dismissed by Additional District Judge by the order dated 30.4.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defendant was an illiterate person and fully depended upon his Counsel. Although heirs of Smt. Kaushilya were substituted in SCC Suit No. 38 of 1983 but the Counsel has committed negligence and instead of arraying the heirs of Smt. Kaushilya in the recall applications, arrayed Smt. Kaushilya alone as party. There is no limitation for amendment as such amendment application was filed for amending/adding heirs of Smt. Kaushilya. It has been held by Supreme Court that due to negligence of the Counsel, interest of litigants should not be allowed to suffer. The Courts below have illegally failed to exercise their jurisdiction as vested in law and rejected the applications of the petitioners, causing material injustice to the petitioners. The orders of the Courts below are illegal and liable to set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. Although there is no limitation for impleadment of party but there is limitation for filing recall application. Impleadment application was filed on 5.1.2013, while ex parte decree was passed on 16.8.1988. Heirs of Kaushilya were substituted in the suit by order dated 14.10.1987. Their names were mentioned in the decree also, copy whereof is filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The application for setting aside ex parte decree dated 16.8.1988 was filed on 5.4.1990, recall application was filed on 26.4.1991. The defendant filed the application dated 6.10.2001, for permitting him to furnish security of decretal amount, condoning delay. In this application, Smt. Kaushil (deceased) was arrayed as the opposite party and her sons and daughters were arrayed as her heirs. The; application (12-Ka) under Order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C. was filed on 21.3.2003 arid application (67-C) under Order I, Rule 10 read with Order VI, Rule 17 and section 151, C.P.C. for amending/adding the heirs of Smt. Kaushilya (opposite party) was filed on 5.1.2013. Such a conduct cannot be said a bona fide mistake in good faith. At least the petitioners came to know about[ this mistake on 6.10.2001 even then impleadment application was filed on 5.1.2013. Such a conduct cannot be said a bona fide mistake in good faith. At least the petitioners came to know about[ this mistake on 6.10.2001 even then impleadment application was filed on 5.1.2013. The Courts below have not committed any illegality in rejecting these application. The petitioners are enjoining possession without paying rent. 8. There is another reason also for not interfering with the impugned order. The petitioners did not comply with Proviso to section 17 (1) of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, which is mandatory provisions. Supreme Court in Kedarnath v. Mohan Lal Kesarwari AIR 2002 SC 582 , held that a bare reading of the provision shows that the legislature has 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 I filed at any time up to the time of presentation of application for setting aside I 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. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.