TEJ SINGH Vs. RAM SHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order of the court below by which the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code has been rejected.

(2.) A suit for eviction and arrears of rent being SCC suit No.10 of 2007 was filed which came to be decreed exparte on 25.10.2010. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he had no knowledge of the exparte decree. However, upon publication he came to know about the decree and immediately filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code on 20.8.2011. He submitted that he also moved an application under Sec. 17 of the Small Causes Courts Act. That application remained pending. In the meantime, the revisionist also furnished the decretal amount in cash to the plaintiff which was accepted by them. The said amount was deposited after one year of moving the application under Sec. 17 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally submits that without considering the application under Sec. 17 of the Act, his application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code has been rejected.

(3.) Disputing the allegations made by the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for the landlord respondent submits that the court below has rightly held that along with the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code, no application under Sec. 17 of the Act was moved. It is further submitted that prior to the consideration of the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code, the entire decretal amount is mandatorily required to be deposited which having not been done, the court below was perfectly justified in rejecting the application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code.