DAYA RAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. The defendant-petitioner feels aggrieved by an order passed in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act whereunder holding that the application filed by him seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree was not maintainable, the order passed by the trial court setting aside the ex. parte decree has been reversed restoring the ex. parte decree passed against the petitioners.

(2.) I have heard Sri H. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the plaintiff-respondents and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) THE order of the trial court setting aside the ex. parte decree was challenged in revision. THE revisional court, however, was of the view that the amount of pendente lite and future damages in respect whereof the decree had been passed by the trial court had to be taken to be amount due under the decree but inasmuch as the said amount had not been deposited by the defendant there could be no justification for holding that the entire money due under the decree had been deposited. In the aforesaid view of the matter the revisional court set aside the order passed by the trial court maintaining the ex parte decree holding that the application filed by the defendant seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree was not legally maintainable in the absence of compliance of the requirements of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.