JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. – Heard Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist as well as Mr. Farhat Hussain, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. 2. Since a trivial question is involved in the instant SCC Revision, as such, with the consent of parties' counsel it is being decided finally at the admission stage. 3. The instant SCC Revision has been filed challenging the interlocutory orders dated 06.09.2016 and 11.8.2016. By the order dated 11.8.2016, the learned Court below has provided that the applications (C-35 and C-37) shall be decided at the time of final hearing. The applications C-35 and C-37 were filed for condonation of delay and permission to deposit the arrears of rent. By the order dated 06.09.2016, the learned Court below has allowed the application C-52 permitting revisionist-defendant to bring on record certain documents. 4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that due to bona fide reasons the revisionist could not deposit the alleged arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. In fact, the revisionist being a lady is not fully conversant with the law and her earlier counsel had not informed her about the legal requirement of deposition of arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. She is ready to deposit the entire amount of arrears of rent and for that has moved application for condonation of delay and permission to deposit the said amount. The learned Court below instead of deciding the said applications has fixed the matter for final hearing with observation that the said applications (C-35 and C-37) would be considered and decided at the time of final judgment. 5. It is submitted that the revisionist has no intention to delay the proceedings and is always ready to cooperate in the early disposal of the case. She is ready to deposit the alleged arrears of rent on her own risk and wants to contest the case on merit. Unless and until the applications preferred by the revisionist (C35 and C-37) are decided, the revisionist cannot contest the case by putting her defence and her defence would be jeopardized. 6. She is ready to deposit the alleged arrears of rent on her own risk and wants to contest the case on merit. Unless and until the applications preferred by the revisionist (C35 and C-37) are decided, the revisionist cannot contest the case by putting her defence and her defence would be jeopardized. 6. Learned counsel for revisionist relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh v. District Judge, Fatehpur and others; 1998 (2) ARC 416 submits that it is well established in law that as and when the Court comes to conclusion that on the face of record it appears that a great injustice has been done to a party on account of certain bona fide error, it is the duty of the Court to correct the error in order to do complete justice between the parties. The learned Court below should have allowed the revisionist to deposit the arrears of rent by condoning the delay and shall thereafter proceed with the matter to decide it finally. 7. Mr. Farhat Hussain, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, on other hand, submits that it is for the Court to consider as to whether the revisionist can be permitted to deposit the arrears of rent at this stage, however, the conduct of the revisionist clearly shows that she wants to delay the proceeding as the matter is ripe for hearing and has been fixed for final hearing. At this stage, any further time granted to the revisionist would unnecessarily delay the proceedings. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 9. So far as the question as to whether the Court has inherent power to extend the time to a party to make certain statutory compliance including deposition of arrears of rent, etc. is concerned, it is to be observed that in case in a particular case the Court comes to conclusion that there are certain bona fide and unavoidable reasons due to which a party has not been able to make the compliance on the first date of hearing, the Court exercising its inherent power can always grant reasonable time to make the said compliance and deposit the arrears of rent, etc. 10. 10. In the present case, the applications preferred by the revisionist for condonation of delay and permission to deposit the arrears of rent are still pending and the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 101.8.2016 has provided that the applications (C-35 and C-37) shall be decided at the time of final disposal of the case. 11. I am of the view that the approach adopted by the learned Court below is not correct. The learned Court below should have first decided the applications (C-35 and C-37) before fixing the matter for final hearing and proceeding on merit. 12. In view of above, the order impugned dated 11.8.2016 is set aside to that extent with direction to learned Court below to decided the applications C-35 and C-37 in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and thereafter proceed with the case to decide finally on merit. 13. Learned counsels for revisionist as well as respondent no. 2 have given an undertaking before this Court that they will not unnecessarily delay the proceedings by seeking adjournments and will fully cooperate in the final disposal of the case at an early date. 14. In view of above, the learned Court below shall make all possible endeavour to decide the case finally as early as possible, in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 15. With the aforesaid observations, the SCC Revision is Partly Allowed. Revision allowed.