DEV PAL ALIAS GUDDU MISTRI Vs. JALAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JSCC suit No. 18 of 2002 had been filed by the landlord contending therein that petitioner has been in arrears of rent w.e.f. January, 2001. Said suit in question was decreed on 22.12.2003. Petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C on 07.01.2004. On 23.02.2004 petitioner moved an application for furnishing security as provided under Section 17(1) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887. On 28.08.2004 Civil Judge passed order setting aside exparte decree on cost of Rs. 500/- Against the said order Revision was preferred under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 and said revision has been allowed on 08.12.2004 and the order passed by Judge Small Causes Court was set aside as provision of Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 Act has not at all been complied with. Thereafter an application for review has been moved on 21.12.2004 and said review application has also been rejected. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey appearing with Sri C.P. Pandey, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case gross injustice has been done to his client as orders have been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing and further qua application under Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887, no orders whatsoever have been passed, as such Revisional Court in the facts of the present case ought to have remitted the matter back for fresh decision, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Countering the said submission Sri K.M. Asthana, Advocate appearing with Sri Shiv Singh Yadav, Advocate submitted that in the present case provision as contained under proviso to Section 17(1) has not at all been complied with, as such orders which have been passed by Revisional Court are rightful orders passed strictly in accordance with law, and as far as review application is concerned, at the point of time when same was taken up learned Counsel for the petitioner was not at all present, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.