Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. MISRA
VISHWA NATH SINGH - Appellant
Versus
GOPAL KRISHNA SINGHAL - Respondents
CIV. REVN. 54 Of 1983
Decided On : 05/06/1985
PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT - SECTION 17 - ORDER 9 RULE 13 CPC - SETTING ASIDE EX PARTE DECREE - DEPOSIT OF DECRETAL AMOUNT - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO EXTEND TIME - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 17.
Fact of the Case:
Defendant Vishwanath Singh filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. to set aside an ex parte decree for ejectment, arrears of rent, and damages passed against him by the trial court. The trial court rejected the application as not maintainable, holding that the defendant had not deposited the full decretal amount, including pendente lite and future damages, as required by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's application as not maintainable. The court interpreted Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to mean that the defendant must deposit the decretal amount within 30 days of the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree, but the court has the jurisdiction to extend this time limit. In this case, the defendant had deposited the decretal amount as per the court's order, and therefore, the application was maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. as not maintainable? 2. Whether the defendant was required to deposit the full decretal amount, including pendente lite and future damages, as required by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's application as not maintainable because the defendant had deposited the decretal amount as per the court's order. 2. The court interpreted Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to mean that the defendant must deposit the decretal amount within 30 days of the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree, but the court has the jurisdiction to extend this time limit.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the trial court's order rejecting the defendant's application, and directed the trial court to restore the suit to its original number and decide it afresh on merits.
( 1 ) A suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages was filed by the landlord plaintiff opposite party Gopal Krishna Singhal against the tenant Vishwanath Singh in respect of house No. C-1014, MIG. Ram Sagar Misra Nagar (Now Indra Nagar), Lucknow with the allegation that the defendant is tenant in the said premises since 15-2-1982 at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- besides Rs. 20/- as water charges. The defendant fell in arrear of rent whereupon a notice dated 14-6-1982 was issued by the plaintiff through his counsel demanding arrears of rent etc. and terminating tenancy. This notice was allegedly served on 16-6-1982, but the defendant neither paid the arrears nor vacated the premises in question. The plaintiff thereupon filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs. 1440. 32 as arrears of rent since 15-4-1982 to 16-6-1982 including water charges on the aforesaid rate and a sum of Rs. 1504. 00 was claimed as damages. for use and occupation since 17-7-1982 to 22-10-1982, the date of filing the suit. The plaintiff also claimed that a decree for pendente lite and future damages till the actual delivery of physical possession be passed in his favour against the defendant and it was mentioned that the additional court-fee will be paid at the time of execution of decree. A prayer for awarding costs of the suit against the defendant was also made. This suit was filed in the court of District Judge, Lucknow and was registered as SCC Suit No. 46 of 1982. The learned District Judge, Lucknow directed issue of summons to the defendant fixing 14-12-1982 for final disposal, but transferred the case to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Lucknow for disposal. The learned Additional District Judge on 14-12-1982, however, directed summons to be issued to the defendant fixing 27-1-1983 for filing written statement and 3-2-1983 for framing of issues. It would be relevant to mention that 27-1-1983 was not a working day being declared a holiday, and, as such, there was no question of defendants putting appearance on said date. The defendant, however, could not attend court on 3-2-1983 as according to him he had fallen ill and was unable to attend court on that date. As none attended court on behalf of the defendant on 3-2-1983, the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow directed the case to proceed ex parte against the defendant and fixed 4-2-1983 for recording ex parte evidence and on that date the suit of the plaintiff was decreed ex parte. The operative portion of the judgement and order reads us under :-"the suit for the plaintiff for ejectment, recovery of Rs. 1449. 32 as arrears of rent and Water charges and Rs. 1504. 00 being damages along with damages pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 450/- plus Rs. 20/- water charges P. M. in respect of house in suit is decreed against the defendant ex parte with ex parte costs. Court-fee on the damages pendente lite and future shall be paid on the execution side. Sd/- V. N. Pandey, vi Addl. District Judge, lucknow. "
( 2 ) A decree was prepared on 16-2-1983 and it appears that without putting it on the notice board, the decree was signed by the learned Additional District Judge on that very date, i. e. , 16-2-1983. Costs of the suit as assessed in the decree amounted to Rs. 1239. 45. A perusal of the decree indicates that the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment, recovery of Rs. 1440. 32 as arrears of rent and water charges and Rs. 1504. 00 being damages along with pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 450/- plus Rs. 20/- water charges per month in respect of house in question was decreed against the defendant ex parte with ex parte costs. Court-Fee on the damages, pendente lite and future, was ordered to be paid on the execution side.
( 3 ) AN application was moved by the defendant Judgement-debtor on 2-3-1983 under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. which was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1983. It was averred in the application that the defendant had come to attend the c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
