The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the judgment and order dated 24. 1. 1996 and 28. 1. 1995 (Annexures-5 and 4 to the writ petition) passed by the Revisional Court in Revision Nos. 6 of 1993 and 14 of 1989.

( 2 ) IN respect of the premises in dispute, the respondents No. 3 and 4 filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectemnt of the petitioner, which was registered as JSCC suit No. 1 of 1989. When despite service of notice the defendant-petitioner did not appear in the suit, the Trial Court proceeded ex parte and vide judgment dated 4. 5. 1989 decreed the suit for the reliefs claimed. Thereafter, an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed by the petitioner with the allegations that he had no knowledge of the proceedings. No notices or summons were served upon him and it was only on 30/6/1989 that he acquired knowledge of the ex parte decree. Thereupon, he applied for inspection of the record and filed an application for recalling the order on 3/7/1989 alongwith affidavit. The petitioner also filed an application for furnishing security/ deposit of the decreetal amount as contemplated under the proviso to Section 17 of the provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, (hereinafter referred to as the 1887 Act ). Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed objections to recall application alleging that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings he deliberately did not appear, there is non-compliance of the proviso to Section 17 of the 1887 Act, therefore, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was liable to be rejected.

( 3 ) IT would be relevant to mention here that the defendant-petitioner also filed a revision on merit under Section 25 of the 1887 act against the ex parte decree dated 4. 5. 1989, which was registered as JSCC Revision No. 14 of 1989.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court after considering the application under the proviso to Section 17 of the 1887 Act, allowed the same vide order dated 12/9/1989 and granted 10 days time for funishing the security. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner submitted the tender on 22/9/1989 and deposited Rs. 4,000. 00. The trial Court vide order dated 8. 1. 1993, held the deposit made by the petitioner to be sufficient compliance of the proviso under Section 17 of the 1987 Act and further holding that the defendant had no knowledge prior to 30. 6. 1989 and that there was no sufficient service, dismissed the objection of the landlord and allowed the application (paper No. 4-C) for setting aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit to its original number. Against the order dated 8. 1. 1993, the landlord filed revision No. 6 of 1993 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.

( 5 ) THE Revisional Court firstly, by its judgment dated 28. 1. 1995 dismissed the Revision no. 14 of 1989 filed by the tenant-petitioner on the ground of limitation, being barred by time, further, the Revisional Court vide judgment dated 24. 1. 1996 allowed the Revision no. 6 of 1993 filed by the landlord-respondents No. 3 and 4 holding that sufficient compliance of proviso to Section 17 of the 1887 act had not been made and accordingly rejected the application (paper No. 4-C) of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree. The effect was that the ex parte decree dated 4. 5. 1989 become operative under law.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid two orders passed in the two revisions the tenant-petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

( 7 ) I have heard Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swapnil kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4.

( 8 ) THAT with regard to the Revision No. 14 of 1989 decided vide judgment dated 28. 1. 1995 it has been contended by the parties that in view of the fact that the Trial Court has allowed the restoration application and restored the suit to its original number, the said revision had become infructuous and oug