S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition S.C.C. Suit No. 68 of 1978 filed by landlords -respondents against original tenant -petitioner Shafiya Marium (since deceased and survived by LRs. ) was decreed ex parte on 3.5.1985. Original petitioner filed restoration application and in purported compliance of provisions of section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act an amount of Rs. 1450/ - out of the total decretal amount of Rs. 3970/ - was deposited. For rest of the amount of Rs. 2520/ - an application was filed praying for permission to furnish security. Application was allowed on 28.8.1985. Initially security bond was given by one Jamuna Prasad but later on it was furnished by one Mohammad Ishaq. In the order dated 28.8.1985 it was directed that defendant shall furnish personal bond in respect of balance decretal amount. Order dated 28.8.1985 was challenged by plaintiff -respondents in revision and thereafter in writ petition but of no avail. Thereafter, restoration application was taken up by the Trial Court/Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge, Jaunpur, J.S.C.C. Through order dated 7.9.1993 held that in pursuance of order dated 28.8.1985 defendant should have filed her own bond and not bond of any other person. After taking this view Trial Court through order dated 7.9.1993 rejected the restoration application. Against the said order original petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 305 of 1993. District Judge, Jaunpur through judgment and order dated 8.11.1993 dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition. In my opinion, Courts below have taken an extremely technical view in the matter. Even if it is assumed that the intention of the order dated 28.8.1985 was that defendant should file her own bond, still there were ample chances of bona fide misinterpretation of the said order. In any case, the purpose of asking for security is to ensure the payment of the decretal amount. The said purpose is equally served by the bond of the defendant or any other person. In the matter of restoration some liberal approach is always desirable.
(2.) IN my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter for decision of restoration application. Learned Counsel for both the parties have also stated that in case the Court is of the opinion that provisions of section 17 Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been complied with, then restoration application may be decided right now and decision on the same may not be deferred. True copy of the restoration application is Annexure -'I' to the writ petition in which it was stated that original tenant -petitioner, who was a lady, was suffering from fever on the date on which suit was decreed ex parte and that she was also a heart patient. Thereafter, on 2.5.1985 she suffered heart attack. In my opinion, sufficient ground for setting aside ex -parte decree has been made out and good reasons have been assigned to the original defendant for her absence on 3.5.1985 when the suit was decreed ex -parte. Accordingly, restoration application deserves to be allowed, which is hereby allowed on payment of Rs. 3,000/ - as costs. Costs shall be positively deposited by 28.2.2006 failing which this order shall stand automatically vacated and the writ petition shall stand dismissed. The costs shall be deposited before the Trial Court for immediate payment to landlord -respondents. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned in this writ petition dated 7.9.1993 passed by respondent No. 2 and, order dated 8.11.1993 passed by respondent No. 1 are set aside. Ex -parte decree dated 3.5.1985 is set aside. As the matter is quite old, hence after deposit of the cost, the Trial Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date on which the aforesaid cost is deposited.;