SABIR AHMAD Vs. KHALI ULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party.

(2.) Present revision has been filed challenging the order dtd. 9/3/2022 passed by District Judge, Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 340 of 2021 (Sabir Ahmad and another vs. Khali Ulla) arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 22 of 2019 (Khali Ulla vs. Sabir Ahmad and another).

(3.) Learned counsel for defendants-revisionists submitted that SCC Suit No. 22 of 2019 has been filed claiming rent of Rs.5,000.00 per month. Defendants-revisionists could not receive summon, therefore, they were unable to appear before the Court below. Accordingly, the said suit was decreed ex parte vide order dtd. 7/12/2020. It is next submitted that after knowing about the order dtd. 7/12/2020, defendants-revisionists have moved application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for recalling of ex parte order dtd. 7/12/2020. It is also submitted that Sec. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1887') provides to deposit the decretal amount for setting aside the ex parte decree, therefore, defendants-revisionists have also deposited the said amount. It is next submitted that plaintiff-opposite party has also moved application for releasing of amount so deposited in his favour, upon which defendants-revisionists have filed objection dtd. 12/1/2022 with specific case that this amount can only be released after disposal of application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and not before that. Lastly, it is submitted that as per Sec. 17(2) of Act, 1887, as on date, defendants-revisionists are not liable to pay the amount and they would be liable only if application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC is rejected. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Krishna Devi vs. Shobha Chandra; 1981 ALL. L.J. 989. Therefore, under such circumstances, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.