ORDER :- The present revision by the defendant is directed against the order of the 4th Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dated 5th October 1974.

2. The facts leading up to this revision lie in a narrow compass:

3. Smt. Rajeshwari Bibi, the plaintiff opposite party, filed a suit for ejectment of Dullan, the defendant applicant, and for recovery of Rs. 713.40 p. as arrears of rent and damages along with future and pendente lite damages at the rate of Rs. 21/- per mensem from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of delivery of possession over the accommodation in question. The plaintiff also claimed costs.

4. On 10th December, 1973 the defendant was found absent despite sufficient notice. The suit, therefore, proceeded ex parte. On 11th December, 1973 ex parte evidence was recorded and, ultimately on 2nd January, 1974, an ex parte decree was passed in the following terms:

"This suit for the ejectment of the defendant from the premises in suit and for the recovery of Rs. 713.40 Paise is decreed with ex parte costs. The pendente lite and future damages are awarded at the rate of Rs. 21/- per month."

5. The defendant applicant moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 30th January 1974. On the same day, he also moved an application seeking permission to deposit Rupees 924/- in Court as cash security. The application was allowed by a cryptic order and notices were issued on the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

6. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the cause shown for setting aside the ex parte decree was sufficient. It, accordingly set aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit to its original number. The plaintiff opposite party, however, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court dated 11th May, 1974 went up in revision and the 4th Additional District Judge, Allahabad, by his order dated 5th October, 1974 set aside the order dated 11th May, 1974, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, setting aside the ex parte decree. The learned Additional District Judge did not enter into the merits of the application. He dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree on a technical ground that there has been no compliance of the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Section 17, in so far as is material for the purposes of the point involved in the case reads:

"17 (1) . ... ... ... ...

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 preformance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed."

7. A bare reading of the Proviso makes it clear that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree can be entertained only on the condition that at the time of presenting the application, either a deposit of the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment has been made or security has been furnished in pursuance of an order obtained on a previous application made by him.

8. The question involved in this case is whether there has been compliance of the Proviso to section 17 (1) of the Provincial small Cause Courts Act.

9. Sri G. P. Bhargava, appearing for the applicant raked two contentions, firstly that the amount deposited by him while moving the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was a cash security accepted by the Court within the meaning of the second part of the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. Alternatively he urged that the amount deposited by him may be taken to be a deposit of the decretal, amount within the meaning of the first part of the Proviso to section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as well and there has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document