VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. BHAGWAT DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6.7.1985, passed by First Additional District Judge, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 34 of 1984 whereby the application of the revisionist for setting aside ex-parte decree has been rejected with costs for non-compliance of proviso to Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE background facts in a nutshell essentially are as follows :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant-revisionist has submitted that the decree was passed on 18.8.1984 and thereafter he moved an application for setting aside the decree on 23.8.1984. The deposit of the entire decretal amount was not made as the decree was not prepared till then. He moved an application for preparation of the decree and presented tender of Rs. 8,000 on 17.9.1984 and the said amount was deposited on 20.9.1984. It was further submitted that the entire decretal amount could not be deposited since it was not specifically mentioned in the decree, as such on account of mis-calculation, correct decretal amount could not be deposited. However, the substantial compliance of proviso to Section 17 of the Act was made. Thus, therefore the court below has committed a manifest error of law in passing the impugned order.