Compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is essential for challenging an ex parte judgment, and procedural missteps do not invalidate jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for revision applicant and Shri Ved Byas Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for landlord respondents.

2. By means of this revision application instituted under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act , 1887 revision applicant has challenged the order passed by the Judge Small Causes rejecting his application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.10.2015 decreeing the SCC suit No. 07 of 2014.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner admittedly being a tenant of the landlord respondent was subject to an eviction suit for recovery of arrears of rent vide SCC Case No. 07 of 2014. Petitioner sought to contest the matter on the plea that he was not the tenant of the landlord respondent but was the owner of the property in question and that the municipal records carried his name in the column of title of the property but ultimately for his non-appearance in the suit, the suit proceeded ex parte and got finally decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2015. Instead of challenging the same before the higher court, petitioner moved an application initially under Section 151 CPC registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2016 for recall of the ex parte judgment and decree. This application dated 30.03.2016 ultimately came to be rejected by the court on 04.04.2016 recording this fact that neither the compliance of the provision under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act was made, nor application was filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court also observed that the application in these circumstances filed under Section 151 CPC was not maintainable.

4. This order was further challenged before this Court by means of petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution bearing No. 2726 of 2016, however, the Court observed that the order was revisable and, therefore, liberty was granted to file revision and further certified copy was directed to be returned to the petitioner after obtaining photocopy thereof on record. Petitioner was also directed to serve a copy to Shri Pravin Kumar Giri, the then counsel representing the landlord in the event revision was filed.

The order dated 22.04.2016 is reproduced hereunder:

"The petitioners have an alternative remedy of revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Office is directed to return the certified copies of the orders to the counsel for the petitioners after taking photostat copies of the same.

When the revision is filed notice of revision will be given to Sri Praveen Kumar Giri, who has filed caveat in the matter."

5. After this above order was passed, instead of pursuing the remedy of revision against the order rejecting the application for recall, petitioner filed a composite revision petition being SCC petition (Defective) No. 98 of 2016 both against the order rejecting the Misc. Recall Application dated 04.04.2016 and also ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.10.2015. However, before the court could proceed to hear the matter on merits, the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner made a statement before the court that revision-applicant was giving up challenge to the order dated 04.04.2016 rejecting the recall application. It is after this statement came to be made that the Court recorded this statement in its order and ultimately dismissed the delay condonation application for there being no genuine explanation offered for delay in filing the revision petition in respect of ex parte judgment and decree. The order passed by this Court rejecting the revision application and recording the statement made on behalf of petitioner giving up his challenge to the order dated 04.04.2016 even though revision was directed against that order also, is reproduced hereunder:

"Counsel for the revisionists states that he is giving up the challenge to