CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2002) 01 AHC CK 0054

Jai Prakash vs Gulab Singh Rathor

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 15 January 2002 · Citation: (2002) 1 AWC 557

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.K. Rathi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 470 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 378 words

B.K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri Ramesh Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Burman, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2.

The opposite party filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2000 for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent against the revisionist. The suit was decreed ex parte on 15.2.2000. The applicant moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151. C.P.C. supported by an affidavit to set aside the judgment and decree. The said application has been rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been filed.

3.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire decretal amount was Rs. 35,695 out of which the appellant deposited Rs. 18,000 in cash ; that he also requested for furnishing security for the entire decretal amount and the same was furnished by the permission of the Court ; that, therefore, there was compliance of the proviso to Section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act. As against this, it has been argued by Sri Pankaj Burman that proviso to Section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act require for furnishing of the security, for the performance of the decree or compliance of the Judgment as the Court may direct. It is contended that the security has been furnished for the decretal amount only ; that no security was furnished regarding decree for ejectment nor there was any request in the application for permission to furnish security for that part. It was not mentioned that the applicant be permitted to furnish security for the compliance of the decree for ejectment.

4.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that security for the entire decretal amount of Rs. 35,695 was furnished and Rs. 18,000 were also deposited ; that in this manner there was surplus security of Rs. 18,000. However, it is regarding the payment of the decretal amount. There was no request that security may be permitted to be furnished for compliance of the decree for ejectment, as such there is no compliance of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The application was, therefore, rightly rejected.

5.

The revision has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.