TAZUDDIN Vs. ANWAR ALIAS RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks the quashing of the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2012 by which the Revision filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 23rd November, 2011 passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes was dismissed. The Judge, Court of Small Causes by the order dated 23rd November, 2011 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30th May, 2009 passed in SCC Suit No. 38 of 2008. It is seen from the records of the writ petition that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30th May, 2009 was filed by the petitioner on 11th October, 2010 and subsequently on 11th May, 2011 an application was moved by the judgment debtor that the amount deposited by the petitioner under section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Act') may be considered as sufficient compliance of the deposit to be made under the proviso to section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the '1887 Act') and in the alternative, the petitioner may be permitted to give security for the performances of the decree.

(2.) The application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree was rejected by the Judge, Court of Small Causes by the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011 for the reason that the condition stipulated in the proviso to section 17(1) of the 1887 Act for deposit of the amount due under the decree at the time of presentation of the application had not been complied by the judgment debtor. The Revision filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited more than the decretal amount under section 30 of the 1972 Act and it is for this purpose that he had moved an application on 11th May, 2011 before the Court with the alternative prayer that the petitioner was ready to furnish security for this amount.