JUDGMENT : MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard Shri Shujat Kidwai, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Ghufran Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator. 2. With the consent of respective parties, the present revision is being decided at the admission stage itself. 3. The present S.C.C. Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2025 and the formal order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the District Judge, Barabanki in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2024 whereby the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the revisionists was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that an ex-parte decree/order was passed on 20.01.2025 in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2024. Against which, the revisionists had preferred a recall application on 25.07.2025 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.. The said application was accepted by Additional District Judge by order dated 17.10.2025 but on 06.12.2025, the District Judge has rejected the recall application by placing reliance upon the Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1887) without considering that the revisionists on the very same date had moved an application for providing time for giving the security, so the order is bad in the eyes of law and deprived the revisionists from getting justice on the technical ground. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per Section 17 of the Act, 1887, the revisionists had to move an application for recall/review etc accompanied therewith the amount due under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment. In case to dispense with the same, the application for recall must be accompanied with an application seeking direction of the Court for leave to furnish security but the application for recall preferred by the revisionists was neither accompanied with the decreetal amount nor any application to furnish the security despite the fact that the said condition is mandatory in nature as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Vs. Mohan Lal Kesarwari and others reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 582, hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned herein passed by the District Judge, Barabanki. 6. Mohan Lal Kesarwari and others reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 582, hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned herein passed by the District Judge, Barabanki. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, going through the record of the case, the relevant provisions and the judgment relied by learned counsel for the respondent, the position which emerges out as in the present case is that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that against the decree dated 20.01.2025, the revisionists had preferred a recall application on 25.07.2025 without accompanying therewith the decreetal amount and as per proviso to the Section 17 (1), the revisionists has also not filed any application to dispense with the deposit at the time of filing of the recall application. For convenience, Section 17 (1) of the Act 1887 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "17. Application of the Code of Civil Procedure- (1) [the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall save in so far 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, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed]. (2) Where a person has become liable as surety under the proviso to sub section (1), the security may be realised in manner provided by section of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. The proviso of Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1887 is very clear that application seeking setting aside of decree passed ex-parte or for a review of judgment must be accompanied with either depositing in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or giving such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court had directed on a previous application made by revisionists in this regard. The said condition is mandatory in nature as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath (supra) relied by learned counsel for the respondent/caveator. The relevant paras of the said judgment and order is being quoted hereinbelow :- "8. 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. 9. In the case at hand, the application for setting aside ex parte decree was not accompanied by deposit in the Court of the amount due and payable by the applicant under the decree. The applicant also did not move any application for dispensing with deposit and seeking leave of the Court for furnishing such security for the performance of the decree as the Court may have directed. The application for setting aside the decree was therefore incompetent. It could not have been entertained and allowed" 8. The applicant also did not move any application for dispensing with deposit and seeking leave of the Court for furnishing such security for the performance of the decree as the Court may have directed. The application for setting aside the decree was therefore incompetent. It could not have been entertained and allowed" 8. It is admitted as well as pleaded case of the revisionists that they had moved an application for providing time for giving security on 06.12.2025 i.e. on the date when their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was rejected meaning thereby, it is an admitted and undisputed case that at the time of presentation of the application for recall under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 25.07.2025, the revisionists had neither deposited the amount nor had moved any application for submitting the security, hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 06.12.2025 and formal order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the District Judge, Barbanki passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2024, thus, no interference is called for. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present S.C.C. Revision is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.