MOHD YASIN Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the defendant-applicant has been filed against an order dated. 20th February 1987 whereunder his restoration application has been rejected for non-compliance of proviso to section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since the defendant-applicant Mohd. Yasin was in arrears of rent with effect from 1st July 1979, an ex-parte decree for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment was passed on 1st October 1984 against him. He moved an application for restoration under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 10th October 1984 but neither the decretal amount was deposited nor security was furnished. In fact no previous application regarding security was moved by the defendant- applicant earlier and even on 10th October 1984 in his application under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure all that has been said is that the date fixed la the case was 1st October 1984 and the reason for absence of the applicant was explained on medical ground. Nothing was stated in this application as to whether the decretal amount has been deposited or not or whether the applicant is prepared to furnish security. A stay application was also moved on that date. In that application also nothing was mentioned. However, one more application dated 10th October 1984 purporting to be under section 17 of the Act was also moved. In this application it was specifically mentioned as follows :-

(2.) AGAIN on 15th October 1984 another application was moved for furnishing details of the part of decretal amount which was alleged to have been deposited by the defendant-applicant. It is the admitted case of the parties that complete decretal amount was subsequently deposited by the defendant-applicant only in February 1985 long long after the aforesaid date, viz. 10th October 1984 the date of moving the application under section 17 of the Act and the expiry of the time limit provided for moving the said application. Factually, however, vide its order dated 15th October 1984 the court allowed the applicant to deposit security within the statutory period but the same also could not be complied with. The defendant filed a third-party security before the court on which on 9th November 1984 the court passed an order that the revenue extracts of land should be filed. Admittedly these revenue extracts of land have not been filed so far. The court below, therefore, held that there has been no compliance of the proviso to Section 17 of the Act which was mandatory and no security was also furnished within the statutory period and even the decretal amount was deposited after expiration of the period prescribed for restoration. Hence the impugned order was passed by the court below.

(3.) IN the present case it is not disputed that no previous application was made by the applicant in this behalf for directions of the court and even no oral application 'was also made for the said purpose.