- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11-3-81 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Aligarh in SCC Revision No. 171 of 1979 whereby the learned Judge allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 19-2-79 allowing petitioners' application for setting aside the ex pane decree which was passed on 19-2-79.
(2.) AFTER when the suit has been decreed ex, pane, petitioners moved an application for setting aside the decree under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC on 3-3-79 along with an af fidavit and an application for permission to file security in lieu of depositing the decretal amount in cash. The court allowed the said application and granted permission as was sought for by the petitioners. On 17-3- 79 the petitioners filed security bond along with the requisite stamp papers. The court was of the opinion that the security bond was defective. On the same day learned counsel for the petitioners filed fresh security bond removing the defect pointed out by the court annexing therewith the stamp papers which were used with the earlier security bond. It further transpires that by way of abundant caution the petitioners on llth August, 1979 filed before the court fresh requisite stamps in order to avoid any technical objection, which could be raised. The trial court find ing a sufficient cause set aside the ex pane decree. While allowing the said application, the trial court also examined the objection raised with regard to the validity of the security bond which admittedly was filed within the prescribed period of one month. The trial court specifically went into the question whether in the circumstances the petitioners had made compliance of the provisions of Section 17 or not and recorded a categorical finding in favour of the petitioners. Respondents No. 3 to 5, the plaintiffs challenged the said order before the revisional court and the revisional court allowed the revision holding that since the stamp papers had already been used on which defective security bond had been writ ten, fresh security bond on separate papers filed on the same day could not be taken into consideration being insufficiently stamped. It further came to the conclusion that filing of court-fee stamps in the month of August, 1979 was of on consequence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard so also Sri M. S. Haq, counsel for the newly added respondent No. 6. Respondents No. 3 to 5 have not appeared despite sufficient service. Record has also been perused. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended before this Court that the revisional court has erred in law in taking a very narrow view of the matter while setting aside the order of the trial court, whereby the petitioners' application for setting aside the ex pane decree was allowed and thereby great injustice has been done to the petitioners. After going through the record and on a consideration of facts and cir cumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order of the revisional court is not sustainable in law. The court is to ad vance justice and not to deny the same to the parties on mere technicality. Section 17 of the Small Causes Court ACT requires the judgment-debtor either to deposit the decretal amount in cash or to furnish security to the satisfaction of the court under the permission of the court. Un-disputably the petitioners moved an ap plication for restoration within the prescribed period of Limitation of one month along with the application for per mission to file security and that permission was allowed by the court. In compliance thereof the petitioners filed security bond on requisite stamps. The security bond, which was written on the said stamps, had some defects and when those defects were pointed out by the court, the petitioners on the same day filed another security bond along with the stamps on which the defective security bond was written. Not only this, the petitioners by way of abundant caution, had also furnished fresh stamps in the month of August, 1979. In the circumstances it could not be said that the petitioners failed to make due compliance of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. As already observed above, the parties should not be denied jus tice on mere technicality.
(3.) IN the case of Suresh Chandra v. Addl, District] Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, a Single Judge of this Court took the view that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act are only procedural and their object is to protect the interest of decree holder. It was observed that - "the cardinal principle of the interpretation of a statute is that the construction should be so adopted which may facilitate the smooth working of the scheme of the Act. It should be in conform ity with the object sought to be achieved. It should be to promote justice and avoid unreasonable ness. It should not allow artificiality in law. Section 17 of the Act being only procedural in nature has to be interpreted in such a way as to advance justice and to facilitate to meet its ends. The provisions is to be liberally construed. The Court has to see that substantial compliance has been done. " In another case of Prabhu Dayal v. District Judge, Saharanpur, 1983 (1) ARC 757, this Court has taken a view that security furnished by the defendant in com pliance of Section 17 (1) of the Act, if ac cepted by the Court, in spite of the fact it was unregistered, such an order should not be disturbed.;