RAM PIYARI Vs. BUDH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BUDH Sen opposite party No. 1 filed a suit for ejectment against Lala Amichand. During the pendency of the suit, Amichand died. His widow Smt. Ram Piari the present applicant as well as his sons and daughters, who are opposite parties 2 to 7, were substituted in his place. The sons actively participated in the further hearings of the suit and the same was ultimately decreed on December 6, 1975. The decree was ex parte against the applicant, namely, the widow of Amichand. The applicant moved for the setting aside of the ex parte decree on January 19, 1976. She filed a tender for Rs. 208.50, the decretal amount, along with the aforesaid application. The court passed the tender the same day, but the money was deposited in the bank on February 18, 1976. The trial court dismissed the application on the finding that the applicant Smt. Ram Piari had knowledge of the suit and wilfully did not appear and allowed it to proceed ex parte against her. The court disbelieved her case that she came to know of the decree on January 13, 1976. The necessary consequence of this finding was that since the decree was dated Dec. 6, 1975, the application filed on January 19, 1976 was beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

(2.) AGGRIEVED, the lady went up in revision. At the hearing of the revision, it was argued that since the proviso to S. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was not complied with inasmuch as the decretal amount was not deposited within time, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was not maintainable. The learned District Judge upheld this contention and dismissed the revision. The lady has come to this Court under S. 115 of the Civil P.C.

(3.) IN (Sher) Ahmad Khan v. Ali Bux (AIR 1931 All 103) S. 17 was held to be mandatory. IN Ram Bharose v. Ganga Singh (AIR 1931 All 727) a Full Bench explained the various methods of complying with S. 17. The Full Bench gave a reasonable and practical interpretation of the Proviso.