1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3855/2007 Nandu s/o Ruplal Kanojiya and Others Vs. Smt. Tirajabai wd/o Benchand Golcha and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 13/06/2008. Heard Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vaidya, learned counsel for the respondents. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 16th February, 2007 by which the Additional District Judge, Nagpur dismissed the Review Application No. 18/2005 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.330/1993. While dismissing the application for review filed by the petitioners-tenants the Additional District Judge, Nagpur has held that the petitioners have not complied with Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and consequently has rejected the application. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Small Causes Court had granted permission 2 to the petitioners to furnish security within a period of one week in terms of order dated 21.6.1985 which was extended from time to time and last order was passed on 02.7.1985 to furnish security within two weeks. However, the security was offered on 18.7.1985. According to Mr. Shukla, there was delay of only two days delay. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, Mr. Vaidya, learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance upon the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Shailesh Sudhir Joglekar Vs. Nirmal Kumar Gulzarilal Jain (2006(6) Bom. C.R. 325 submitted that Section 17(1) of the Act is mandatory and in the present case, admittedly, the petitioners have not furnished security within the time granted by the Court and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused record, I find no merit in the present petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not furnish security till 16.7.1985 which was the last date on which the petitioners were bound to comply with the order. In Shailesh Sudhir Joglekar's case (supra) this Court after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Kedarnath Vs. Mohan Lal Kesarwari : 2002 (1) Scale 87, 3 held that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act are mandatory. The ratio laid down in Shailesh Joglekar's case (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. Therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.