Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Deposit of Decretal Amount When Stay is Prayed - Courts under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, often direct tenants or applicants to deposit the decretal amount as a condition for granting stay or interim relief during revision proceedings. The deposit is generally mandated to ensure compliance with the decree and to prevent unnecessary delay 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3107, 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2449.
Scope of Revision Under Section 25 - The revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and limited to examining whether there has been a manifest error of law or jurisdictional irregularity. Courts cannot normally entertain additional evidence or remand the case for fresh trial; their role is confined to correcting jurisdictional or legal errors in the original order 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2202, 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2131, 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2202.
Requirement of Depositing Decretal Amount - When a stay or revision is sought, the court typically requires the petitioner to deposit the entire decretal amount or a specified sum. Failure to do so often leads to dismissal of the stay application or revision, emphasizing the importance of compliance with deposit requirements under Sections 17 and 25 of the Act 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3107, 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2449, 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 251.
Application of Proviso to Section 17 - The proviso allows courts to accept security instead of immediate deposit of the entire decretal amount, subject to conditions. Courts have exercised discretion in accepting security or partial deposits, especially when it aligns with principles of fairness or practical necessity 1992 0 Supreme(All) 554, 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 251.
Effect of Non-Compliance - Non-deposit of decretal amount or failure to comply with the conditions prescribed under Section 17 or 25 often results in the rejection of stay or revision petitions, and the courts may proceed with execution or eviction orders 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3107, 2012 0 Supreme(All) 1322.
Conclusion - When a tenant or party files a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, and prays for stay, they are generally required to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security. Courts are cautious to ensure compliance before granting interim relief, and failure to do so can lead to dismissal of the revision or stay application. The scope of revision is limited to legal errors, and additional evidence is not typically entertained unless there is a jurisdictional flaw 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3107, 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2202, 1992 0 Supreme(All) 554.
References:- 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3107- 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2449- 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2202- 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2131- 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 251- 1992 0 Supreme(All) 554
In landlord-tenant disputes, especially eviction cases handled in Small Causes Courts, tenants often face tough decisions when challenging court decrees. One common question arises: Tenant to be Directed to Deposit Decreetal Amount in a Revision Filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act if Stay is Prayed for? This issue is critical for tenants seeking to appeal or revise decisions without immediate financial strain, while landlords push for security on awarded amounts.
This blog post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key judgments and statutory provisions. We'll explore whether depositing the decretal amount is a mandatory precondition for admitting a revision petition under Section 25, particularly when requesting a stay. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, governs small-value civil suits, including many rent and eviction matters. Section 25 grants revisional jurisdiction to higher courts (like District Courts or High Courts) to review orders from Small Causes Courts for jurisdictional errors, illegality, or material irregularity. Unlike appeals, revisions are discretionary and limited in scope—they don't re-appreciate evidence but correct grave legal flaws. 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2202 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2131
The scope is narrow: Courts cannot typically admit new evidence or remand for fresh trials unless jurisdictional issues demand it. 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2202 This framework balances tenant protections with landlord rights, especially in rent recovery suits.
Courts have consistently held that deposit of the decretal amount is not a mandatory pre-condition for entertaining or admitting a revision under Section 25, even if stay is prayed for. The requirement primarily applies to specific reliefs like obtaining a stay or setting aside ex parte decrees, not the revision's filing itself. 1990 0 Supreme(All) 1291
Ram Autar Khandelwal VS Addl. District and Session Judge Lucknow - Allahabad (2022)
2024 0 Supreme(All) 2449Ram Autar Khandelwal VS Addl. District and Session Judge Lucknow - Allahabad (2022)
2024 0 Supreme(All) 2449This distinction ensures access to justice without erecting financial barriers to challenging erroneous decrees.
Several judgments provide clarity:
In a landmark ruling, the court stated that while deposit under Section 17 is mandatory for setting aside ex parte decrees or reviews, it is not a pre-condition for the mere filing or admission of a revision petition under Section 25. The deposit may be ordered subsequently for stay. 1990 0 Supreme(All) 1291
Similarly, the revision was maintainable without deposit, and the deposit was relevant only for the purpose of stay or setting aside ex parte decrees. Landlord-tenant deposit rules don't extend to revision admissibility.
Ram Autar Khandelwal VS Addl. District and Session Judge Lucknow - Allahabad (2022)
Another case emphasized: Petitioner's non-deposit didn't bar revision admissibility, though it influenced stay discretion. 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2449
These precedents affirm that procedural hurdles like deposit are relief-specific, not jurisdictional for revisions.
While not needed for admission, deposit often comes into play for stay of execution or related reliefs:
In Tamil Nadu rent control contexts, revisions under analogous Section 25(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act echo similar deposit directions for stays. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41567 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41566
Courts exercise flexibility:
Kamal Kumar Gupta VS Ajay Kumar Gupta - Current Civil Cases
2022 0 Supreme(All) 1172Failure to deposit when directed for stay can result in revision dismissal on merits or execution proceeding. However, the core revision remains entertainable initially. 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3107 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2449
To navigate these proceedings effectively:
Landlords should note that while deposit bolsters stay opposition, courts prioritize jurisdictional review.
In summary, tenants are generally not required to deposit the decretal amount merely for admission of a Section 25 revision under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, even when praying for stay. This requirement activates for interim reliefs like stays or ex parte set-asides, where courts safeguard decree-holders via deposits or security. 1990 0 Supreme(All) 1291
Ram Autar Khandelwal VS Addl. District and Session Judge Lucknow - Allahabad (2022)
2024 0 Supreme(All) 2449Key Takeaways:- Revision admissibility: No deposit precondition.- Stay/relief: Deposit often mandatory or discretionary.- Non-compliance: Risks stay denial, not revision bar.- Scope: Limited to legal/jurisdictional errors.
Stay informed on evolving precedents, as courts balance equity. For personalized strategy, consult a legal expert. This analysis draws from reported cases to aid understanding in tenant-landlord disputes.
#TenantRights, #SmallCausesCourt, #LegalRevision
Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act is concerned, the perusal of paragraph no.12 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in 1963 AIR SC 698, Hari Shankar vs. ... The petitioner-defendant also filed an application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court#HL_E....
XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai. 3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras. ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 (1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2019 in R.C.A. ... When this Civ....
VII Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai. 3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras. ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 (1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act#HL_EN....
(A) Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 - Section 25 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Revision application ... 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 #HL....
Proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, were complied with? ... (2) The respondent tenant had not deposited the entire amount due on 25.08.1998 even under Section 30(2) of Act No.13 of 1972. ... under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 but neither any ....
Proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, were complied with? ... 2) The respondent tenant had not deposited the entire amount due on 25.08.1998 even under Section 30(2) of Act No.13 of 1972. ... under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 but neither any de....
2.The XVI Small Causes Court Judge at Chennai. 3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court. ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, praying to set aside the order and decree dated 30.06.....
By means of this Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Small to entertain this Revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Causes Courts Act, 1887, Revision-Applicant has challenged the order span style="font-family:LiberationSerif,serif;fo....
The High Court was exercising the jurisdiction under Section 25 of the 1887 Act, which provision is as follows: ''25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes. ... At this stage it will be apposite to consider the scope of a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial#HL_EN....
(A) Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 - Section 25 - Revision powers - The court addressed the appropriateness of the revisional ... That the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. do not apply in the present revision in as much as the present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes#HL_E....
Section 17 of the Act of 1887 is being quoted below: The proviso to Section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 prescribes that deposit of decreetal amount is mandatory while moving an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree.
The tenant, being aggrieved, filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.
As the matter is lingering since 2006, the Judge, Small Causes is directed to expedite the hearing of the case. The Revisionist is directed to deposit half of the decreetal amount in cash and security has to be furnished for the rest of the amount, as required under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, latest by 31.7.2010. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge,....
The Judge Small Causes Courts held that the Act was applicable and the suit was dismissed. The tenant filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The second point for determination was whether the tenant was a defaulter of rent as a result of which he was liable for eviction. The Revisional Court while deciding the first point for determination recorded a specific finding of fact that the Act was not applicable to the building in dispute....
The second point for determination was whether the rate of rent was Rs. 425/- and whether the tenant had not been paid rent from 16th September, 1999 to 15th December, 1999 as a result of which he was liable for eviction. The Judge Small Cause Courts held that the Act was applicable and the suit was dismissed. The Revisional Court while deciding the first point for determination recorded a specific finding of fact that the Act was not applicable to the building in dispute. The tenant....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.