Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is procedural in nature and should be interpreted liberally to advance justice. The use of the word "previous application" in Section 17 is directory and not mandatory. The revisional court has no jurisdiction to reassess or reappraise the evidence in order to determine the issue of fact itself.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenants writ petition. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of default. Notices were issued to the defendant but he did not put in appearance. The suit proceeded ex parte. Subsequently it was decreed on 14-1-1987.

( 2 ) THE petitioner came to know of the said decree on 27-1-1987. The relevant record was got inspected the same day. He filed an application under O. 9, R. 13, C. P. C. along with an affidavit for setting aside the ex parte decree on 28-1-1987. Thereafter, he moved an application under S. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (in short the Act) praying that he may be permitted to furnish the personal security.

( 3 ) THE court allowed the application under O. 9, R, 13, C. P. C. on 13-3-1987 holding that there was no personal service on the defendant. The application under S. 17 of the Act was also allowed. The personal security was accepted. The order dated 23-9-1986, to proceed ex parte and ex parte decree dated 14-1-1987 were set aside on payment of cost.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said order the respondent No. 3 filed a revision before the learned District Judge. It was allowed, The orders of the trial court allowing the applications under O. 9, R, 13, C. P. C. and S. 17 of the Act were set aside. The ex parte decree revived. The present writ petition is directed against the said order.

( 5 ) HEARD Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Rishi Ram, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

( 6 ) THE main question to be considered in this case is about the scope of Section17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It provides the procedure to be followed in disposing of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. According to it at the time of presenting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree the defendant may either deposit in 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 of the judgment as the court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed.

( 7 ) IT further provides that before filing an application under O. 9, R. 13, C. P. C. the defendant has to file an application under S. 17 of the Act and necessary compliance of the same has to be done before the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is allowed. According to the learned counsel for the respondent this was not done. The ex parte decree could not be set aside.

( 8 ) IN support of his contention he has relied upon a decision reported in (1979 All CJ 149 Sharif v. Suresh Chandra. After going through the same I find that the scope of S. 17 of the Act has not at all been considered. On the contrary in a case reported in (1988) 2 All Rent Cas 362 : (1988 All LJ 1074) Khursheed v. I-Additional District Judge, Moradabad, this Court took the view that the application for furnishing security under Section 17 of the Act could be filed even after filing of the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree could not be dismissed on the ground that it was filed before filing of the application for furnishing security under Section 17 of the Act. The Court has given good reasons. I am inclined to follow the view taken in the case of Khursheed (supra ).

( 9 ) THE cardinal principle of interpretation of a statute is that the construction should be so adopted which may facilitate the smooth working of the scheme of the Act. It should be in conformity with the object sought to be achieved. It should be to promote justice and avoid unreasonableness. It should not allow artificiality in law.

( 10 ) SECTION 17 of the Act being only procedural in nature has to be interpreted in such a way as to advance justice and to facilitate to meet its ends. The provision is to be liberally construed. The Court has to see that substantial compliance has been done.