ANAND TIWARI Vs. SUSHILA TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant and Sri Yogesh Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord and have perused the record.

(2.) The revisionist-tenant has come up challenging the order dated 3.10.2015 passed by the Court below rejecting prayer made in the application of the revisionist-tenant filed under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 that he may be permitted to give security as he has no cash money. The Court below has passed ex-parte decree dated 27.3.2014 against the revisionist-tenant. Thereafter, the revisionist-tenant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for recalling the order ex-parte decree dated 27.3.2014. Now the aforesaid prayer made in the application of the revisionist-tenant filed under Section 17 of the Act of 1887 has been rejected that no documentary evidence on record has been filed to show that the applicant is not having cash to deposit the entire decretal amount. As such, the revisionist-tenant was directed to deposit entire decretal amount in cash by way of tender.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant is that the proviso to Section 17 of the Act of 1887 clearly provides that a security can also be furnished in such matters. He further submits that the revisionist-tenant is a Class-IV employee and during course of arguments he offered that he shall deposit half of the decretal amount in cash and for balance amount he shall furnish security.