MATHURA PRASAD Vs. VIKRAM JEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been filed against the order of the Munsif Rae Bareli striking off the defence under Rule 5 of Order XV of the CPC and against the revisional order of the District Judge dismissing the revision. The facts relating to the case are as follows : A suit was instituted by the plaintiff for ejectment of the tenant and arrears of rent. The first date of appearance and hearing shown in the summons was 5-4-1977 ; the case was in the court of the Judge Small Causes. On 5-4-1977 the defendant applied for adjournment of the case and the case was adjourned to 10th May, 1977. On this date he filed a tender for the deposit of the amount of admitted rent in accordance with the requirement of Rule 3 of Order XV of the Code as inserted in U. P. The amount in accordance with this tender was deposited on May 12, 1977. The trial court ordered the striking off the defence on the ground that the deposit had not been made on the first date of hearing. The revision filed by the defendant was dismissed on the ground that there was no error of jurisdiction. The defendant has now filed the present revision.

(2.) THE learned District Judge was obviously in error in thinking that he was exercising such powers as are available under Section 115 of the Code while he was dealing with the revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. He considered the case on the basis of the jurisdictional error instead of considering it under the wider scope of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent relied strongly on the Explanation and urged that the date mentioned in the summons must be the date of first hearing. The Explanation has to be read along with the main rule. The intention of the Explanation is to see that the admitted rent is paid before the case proceeds. Rule 5 contemplates the date of first hearing, i.e., the date on which the court wants to hear the case for the first time. If this were not so, the situation will become almost impossible when the court itself does not sit on the date of hearing mentioned in the summons. Section 22 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides :