JAGRUP Vs. SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Tripathi for the respondent.

(2.) The present petition has been filed against orders dated 13.12.2016 and 16.03.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Varanasi and Small Cause Court Varanasi in SCC Revision No. 07 of 2017 and Misc. Case No. 03 of 2004 respectively, by which petitioner's application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set asideex-parte decree dated 22.8.2003 in SCC Suit No. 58 of 1997 has been rejected and, thereafter, the revision preferred by the petitioner against rejection of his application has also been dismissed.

(3.) The admitted position in the case, as it appears from the order of the revisional court, is that the petitioner against whom ex-parte decree was passed by Judge Small Cause Court, has not complied with the provision of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by either making a deposit of the decretal amount or by making an application, at the time of presenting the application to set aside ex-parte decree, to furnish security in lieu thereof. The petitioner has sought to explain non compliance of the aforesaid provision by claiming that the decree was passed by a transferee court without any prior issuance of notice as regards transfer, as is required by Rule 89A of General Rules (Civil), and therefore the decree was a nullity.