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 incompetent.

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.. The said application was accepted by Additional District Judge by order dated 17.10.2025 but on 06.12.2025, the District Judge has rejected the recall application by placing reliance upon the Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1887) without considering that the revisionists on the very same date had moved an application for providing time for giving the security, so the order is bad in the eyes of law and deprived the revisionists from getting justice on the technical ground.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per Section 17 of the Act, 1887, the revisionists had to move an application for recall/review etc accompanied therewith the amount due under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment. In case to dispense with the same, the application for recall must be accompanied with an application seeking direction of the Court for leave to furnish security but the application for recall preferred by the revisionists was neither accompanied with the decreetal amount nor any application to furnish the security despite the fact that the said condition is mandatory in nature as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Vs. Mohan Lal Kesarwari and others reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 582, hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned herein passed by the District Judge, Barabanki.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, going through the record of the case, the relevant provisions and the judgment relied by learned counsel for the respondent, the position which emerges out as in the present case is that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that against the decree dated 20.01.2025, the revisionists had preferred a recall application on 25.07.2025 without accompanying therewith the decreetal amount and as per proviso to the Section 17 (1), the revisionists has also not filed any application to dispense with the deposit at the time of filing of the recall application. For convenience, Section 17 (1) of the Act 1887 is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"17. Application of the Code of Civil Procedure- (1) [the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall save in so far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this Act] be the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes, in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits:

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 performance of the decree or co