MUNNEY Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11-3-81 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Aligarh in SCC Revision No. 171 of 1979 whereby the learned Judge allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 19-2-79 allowing petitioners' application for setting aside the ex pane decree which was passed on 19-2-79.

(2.) AFTER when the suit has been decreed ex, pane, petitioners moved an application for setting aside the decree under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC on 3-3-79 along with an af fidavit and an application for permission to file security in lieu of depositing the decretal amount in cash. The court allowed the said application and granted permission as was sought for by the petitioners. On 17-3- 79 the petitioners filed security bond along with the requisite stamp papers. The court was of the opinion that the security bond was defective. On the same day learned counsel for the petitioners filed fresh security bond removing the defect pointed out by the court annexing therewith the stamp papers which were used with the earlier security bond. It further transpires that by way of abundant caution the petitioners on llth August, 1979 filed before the court fresh requisite stamps in order to avoid any technical objection, which could be raised. The trial court find ing a sufficient cause set aside the ex pane decree. While allowing the said application, the trial court also examined the objection raised with regard to the validity of the security bond which admittedly was filed within the prescribed period of one month. The trial court specifically went into the question whether in the circumstances the petitioners had made compliance of the provisions of Section 17 or not and recorded a categorical finding in favour of the petitioners. Respondents No. 3 to 5, the plaintiffs challenged the said order before the revisional court and the revisional court allowed the revision holding that since the stamp papers had already been used on which defective security bond had been writ ten, fresh security bond on separate papers filed on the same day could not be taken into consideration being insufficiently stamped. It further came to the conclusion that filing of court-fee stamps in the month of August, 1979 was of on consequence.

(3.) IN the case of Suresh Chandra v. Addl, District] Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, a Single Judge of this Court took the view that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act are only procedural and their object is to protect the interest of decree holder. It was observed that - "the cardinal principle of the interpretation of a statute is that the construction should be so adopted which may facilitate the smooth working of the scheme of the Act. It should be in conform ity with the object sought to be achieved. It should be to promote justice and avoid unreasonable ness. It should not allow artificiality in law. Section 17 of the Act being only procedural in nature has to be interpreted in such a way as to advance justice and to facilitate to meet its ends. The provisions is to be liberally construed. The Court has to see that substantial compliance has been done. "