R B SHUKLA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the private respondent.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent No.2 filed suit before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Bahraich registered as Misc. Case No. 1/74/ 84. THE suit was decreed ex parte by order dated 4.8.1984. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners defendants preferred a revision which has been dismissed by the impugned order, hence they preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) WHILE assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, in short Act, though there is a provision to deposit the decretal amount while moving an application for recall of the ex parte judgment and decree under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC but that is not mandatory and in case there is substantial compliance of Section 17 of the Act, then the application should not have been rejected only on the ground that the entire decretal amount has not been deposited. It has been submitted that the trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC keeping in view the insufficiency of service on the defendant. The submission is that once the trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, the revisional Court should not have reversed the judgment of the trial Court.