Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SHARFUDDIN AHMED
Peethala Venkataratnam - Appellant
Versus
Muddala Agastheeswara Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 03-10-64
Section 17 - Small Cause Courts Act - Compliance with the proviso to Section 17 regarding setting aside an ex parte decree by filing a draft bond along with the application
Fact of the Case:
A decree was passed ex parte against the petitioner, who submitted a draft bond along with the application to set aside the decree. The lower court dismissed the petition for not complying with the provisions of Section 17.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the filing of the draft bond along with the application was sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 17, as it indicated that the petitioner was allowed to furnish security in lieu of depositing the amount in cash.
Issues: Compliance with the proviso to Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the direction to test the draft bond indicated that the petitioner was allowed to furnish security, and the subsequent lack of order on the draft bond should not be construed against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the lower court's order and directing it to test the security and proceed with the disposal of the petition on merits.
( 1 ) THE question that falls for determination to this C. R. P. is, whether the filing of a draft bond along with an application for setting aside the ex parte decree made in a samll cause suit is sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act?
( 2 ) IT appears that a decree was passed ex parte against the first defendant-petitioner herein on 22-8-1960. The ground urged for non-appearance was that a sister-in-law of the petitioner was sick, and as such he could not attend the Court. Along with the petition filed to set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioner submitted a draft bond, offering security in a sum of Rs. 500. 00, i. e. , for more than the decretal amount and the costs. Thereupon, the Court passed an order to test the security. Notices were also ordered to the other side, and the plaintiff-respondent filed objections on 16-12-1960. The main objection was that the property was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the decree. The matter was posted *or hearing, but no orders seem to have been passed either accepting or rejecting the security. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree came up for nearing before the lower court and it was urged before it that as no previous application was filed in compliance with the provisions of Section 17, the petition was not maintainable.
( 3 ) THE learned Mtinsif held that as no prior application for obtaining a direction was filed, there has not been sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 17. In that view, he dismissed the petition. The revision petition is- directed against this order.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the draft bond was filed on the same date as the application to set aside the ex parte decree. Thereupon, an order was made for testing the security. The Act does not contemplate filing of a written application prior to the filing of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The relevant provision of Section 17 is as under;"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. "it Is conceded that the Act does not contemplate, filing of a written application for furnishing security in lieu of the deposit of the amount in the Court. The application may be oral, and such seems to be the conclusion of the lower court in para 6 of the judgment where the learned Munsif has observed thus:"so, under such circumstance, there may be implication that a previous application was made orally or in writing by the applicant for permitting him to offer security instead of making a cash deposit of the amount of the decree which he seeks to be set aside. Under such circumstances, the requirements of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act can be held to have been complied with. "if this was the conclusion of the learned Munsif, I think he should have allowed the petition. But, if he has merely reproduced the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner it would warrant the inference that no such application was made even orally to the Court for allowing the petitioner to offer security instead of malting a cash deposit. However, from the fact that the draft bond was filed on the same day along with the application to set aside the decree and an order to test the draft bond was made, I am inclined to hold that the Court had virtually allowed the petitioner to furnish security in lieu of depositing the. amount in cash. Otherwise, there was no meaning in directing the draft security bond to be tested. It might have been on the oral application of the party,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.