Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
MANISH KUMAR
Arun Kumar Verma (Arun Kumar Mishra) – Appellant
Versus
Ramakant Verma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision filed against a lower court order. (Para 3) |
| 2. application for recall not accompanied by required security. (Para 4) |
| 3. conditions for recall application are mandatory. (Para 5) |
| 4. explanation of mandatory nature of deposit provision. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. illegality in lower court's decision is denied. (Para 8) |
| 6. revision dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Heard Shri Shujat Kidwai, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Ghufran Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator.
2. With the consent of respective parties, the present revision is being decided at the admission stage itself.
3. The present S.C.C. Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2025 and the formal order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the District Judge, Barabanki in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2024 whereby the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the revisionists was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that an ex-parte decree/order was passed on 20.01.2025 in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2024. Against which, the revisionists had preferred a recall application on 25.07.2025 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C
Applicants must comply with mandatory deposit requirements for recall of ex parte decrees under Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act; non-compliance renders the application incompet....
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 ....
The restoration application should be considered on its own merits and not based on the past conduct of the parties.
The primary prayer in both recall applications was substantially the recall of the order dated December 6, 2018, and the Court rejected the second recall application on the ground of constructive res....
The timing and maintainability of applications under the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887, were crucial in determining the court's decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal, and the court's consideration of the maintainability ....
A deposit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act must be made within the stipulated time for compliance, but sufficiency of cause must also be assessed before setting aside an ex parte decree.
The court emphasized that a petitioner must act with diligence and clean hands when invoking Article 227, especially when challenging an ex-parte decree after an unreasonable delay.
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
