Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist. Sri Namit Srivastava has appeared for the respondents.

2. The revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 against the order dated 18.9.2014 passed by the Small Causes Court rejecting the application of the defendant revisionist paper no. 5 Ga in Misc. Case No. 40 of 2014 (Liyakat Vs. Mohd. Akran and others) . The court below by the impugned order has refused to grant time to the defendant revisionist for furnishing security as required under Section 17 of the Act for setting aside decree passed ex-parte.

3. The submission of Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant revisionists is that along with an application for setting aside ex-parte decree purported to be filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC an application praying for time to furnish security under Section 17 of the Act was also filed which has been rejected on the ground that the defendant revisionist has not shown any reason for not depositing the amount decreed in cash.

4. Section 17 of the Act provides for following the procedure prescribed by CPC in proceedi