JAI PRAKASH Vs. GULAB SINGH RATHOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramesh Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Burman, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The opposite party filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2000 for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent against the revisionist. The suit was decreed ex parte on 15.2.2000. The applicant moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151. C.P.C. supported by an affidavit to set aside the judgment and decree. The said application has been rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire decretal amount was Rs. 35,695 out of which the appellant deposited Rs. 18,000 in cash ; that he also requested for furnishing security for the entire decretal amount and the same was furnished by the permission of the Court ; that, therefore, there was compliance of the proviso to Section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act. As against this, it has been argued by Sri Pankaj Burman that proviso to Section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act require for furnishing of the security, for the performance of the decree or compliance of the Judgment as the Court may direct. It is contended that the security has been furnished for the decretal amount only ; that no security was furnished regarding decree for ejectment nor there was any request in the application for permission to furnish security for that part. It was not mentioned that the applicant be permitted to furnish security for the compliance of the decree for ejectment.