IRAM KAHKASHA Vs. AFZAL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dhruva Narayan, learned Counsel appearing for revisionist and Sri S.C.

(2.) This revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1887") has arisen from the order dated 3.8.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Etah in S.C.C. Misc. No. 18 of 2001 in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2001 allowing defendant-applicant's application for restoring Small Cause Case No. 2 of 2001 and recalling ex-parte decree and permitting time to the defendant-applicant to file written statement and, thereafter to decide the suit by S.C.C. Court on merits.

(3.) Counsel for revisionist stated that there is no compliance of Section 17 of Act, 1887. However, from para 3 of the order of Court below, I find that the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed on 29.8.2001 within time and instead of depositing decretal amount, an application 5-C was filed on the same date seeking permission for filing security bond in lieu of cash deposit and that was part of record, but, unfortunately, the Court could not pass any order. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no compliance of Section 17 of the Act, 1887. The only error committed by Court below is the observation made by it in the impugned order that Section 17 of Act, 1887 is directory though this Court as well as Apex Court has observed that Section 17 is mandatory.