HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. DAS GUPTA, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
KASEMALI - Appellant
Versus
AJOYENDU PAUL - Respondent
Civil Rule 347 Of 1954
Decided On : AUGUST 26, 1954
PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT - SECTION 17(1) - SECURITY BOND - REGISTRATION - COURT ORDER ACCEPTING BOND DOES NOT MAKE IT EFFECTIVE - BOND REQUIRES REGISTRATION.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, the defendant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. to set aside an ex parte decree. The Court ordered him to furnish security, which he did by filing a security bond. The bond was not registered. The Court rejected the application on the ground that the bond required registration and was not a valid and effective bond.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the security bond required registration and as it was not registered it was not a valid and effective bond. Consequently, the condition in Section 17 (1), Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was not complied with.
Issues: Whether the security bond required registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the execution of the bond was not a step of judicial procedure or a part of judicial proceedings. Therefore, the bond required registration.
Final Decision: The Court discharged the Rule and held that the application under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil P C has, therefore, been rightly rejected.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was defendant in a suit before the Small Cause Court at Alipore for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed ex parte. On 9-4-1949 he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. , for setting aside the 'ex parte' decree. The provision in Section 17 (1), Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits. It was this provision which made available to the petitioner the procedure of an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. , and, as already stated, he took advantage of this provision and filed an application for setting aside the decree. Section 17 (1) has, however, a further provision in its proviso which is in these words:"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 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. "the result of this is that an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. for setting aside a decree passed under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is not a valid application unless either the applicant deposits in Court the decretal amount or gives such security as the Court on his application may direct. When the petitioner filed the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C. no cash was deposited. The Court thereupon ordered him "to deposit money, at his risk, by 30-4-49". On 27-4-49, on an application by the petitioner to be permitted to furnish security instead of cash deposit, the Court ordered, "he is to furnish security, at his risk by 30-4-49", On 27-4-49, on an application by the petitioner to be permitted to furnish security instead of cash deposit, the Court ordered. "he is to furnish security, at his risk by 30-4-49. " On 30-4-1949 a security bond was filed by the petitioner. The document is in these words:"in the 2nd Court of the Munsif at Alipore, 24 Parganas. Misc. Case No. of 1949 S. C. C. Suit No. 381 of 1947 Sk. Kasem Ali, Applicant v. Kanai Lall Pal and Ors. Opposite Party. Security Bond. Whereas an ex parte decree has been obtained by the opposite party against the applicant in the aforesaid suit and whereas the applicant Sk. Kasem Ali has brought a case for setting aside the said ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 on the ground of fraud and non-service of summons. And whereas the Court has ordered the applicant to furnish sufficient security. Therefore I Ahmad Ali Khan son of Md. Ali Khan of Vistipara Tollygunge have voluntarily become surety and do hereby bind myself, my heirs and executors to the said Court that the applicant judgment-debtor shall pay the decretal amount at any time when called upon; and in default of such payment I bind myself, my heirs and executors in respect of my share in the property described in schedule below to pay to the said Court at its order decretal sum amounting to Rs. 179/12/9. In witness whereof I set my hand and seal this 30th day of April, 1949. Witnesses: Ahmad Ali Khan 1. Gourhari Mandal, Pleader
( 2 ) (ILLEGIBLE)SCHEDULE above referred to. All that piece and parcel of about 8 Cottas of land hereditament together with a two storied building standing thereon being and situated at premises No. 38 Russa Road South within Tollygunge Municipality, P. S. Tollygulge, District 24 Parganas butted and bounded on the North By Sultan Alim Road on the East By Kanai Lal Halder's land on the South By the
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.