PURAN PRASAD Vs. JUDGE SMALL CAUSES COURTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties.

(2.) THIS writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 30-07-2005 (copy Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. l in Misc. Case No. 05 of 1999, whereby the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in making deposit as required under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, was rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the peti tioner drew my attention to the im pugned order and argued that the learned Judge, Small Causes Court / Civil Judge (Senior Division) has re jected the application under the as sumption that the deposit was not made> with the application for condonation of delay. Perusal of page No. 59 to the petition shows that the defendant did make deposit on 10th January, 2002, but the said deposit cannot be said to be a valid deposit. Even otherwise, there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay as even after objections were filed in 2000 by the plaintiff, defendant remained slept over the matter till January 2002 and did not make any deposit under Sec tion 17 of the aforesaid Act, which was a mandatory requirement to be com-plied-with, with the application under Rule 9 Order XIIi of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Create PDF with GO2pdf for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer This Software is licensed to: :-REg Copyright Capital Law Infotech