AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.B.Srivastava, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on the petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 591994 of the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, permitting the respondent to furnish security under Section 17(1) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
An application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code was filed in the Court of J. S. C. C. on 221993 along with application for permission to file security and also enclosing a draft security. On 421993 the J. S. C. C. directed decretal amount to be deposited, and on 521993 called for office report about the sufficiency or otherwise of the security. No order, however, was passed thereafter. Meanwhile the surety encashed the FDR which was furnished as security and the respondent tenant moved application dated 5101993 to furnish another security. This was allowed by the impugned order.
The contention that the J. S. C. C. had no jurisdiction to pass impugned order as the period prescribed for furnishing security under Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act had expired, is not sustainable. It is always open to a court to accept a substitute security on account of the security originally filed being withdrawn, or frustrating for any reason. The intention of law is not to frustrate an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. for any act of surety over which'' the concerned .party has no control. The question of delay will not be relevant in such a situation, the same being relevant only at the initial stage. Initially as stated above the respondent did furnish security within time and it was fault of the office of the court that the order of formal acceptance was not passed.
The impugned order of the courts below being perfectly valid, no interference is called for.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.