AMITABH UPADHYAYA AND ORS. Vs. RAMA CHAKRAVARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the revisionists. None is present for the respondent even in the revised call.

(2.) The instant revision is directed against the order dtd. 14/2/2017, by which the court below in Misc. Case No.8 of 2016 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has dismissed the application filed by the revisionists Paper No.30 Ga.

(3.) The revisionists have succeeded in obtaining an exparte decree dtd. 16/12/2015 in SCC Suit No.62 of 2014. The defendant-respondent filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 17/8/2016 accompanied by three more applications. The first application was under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The second application was for staying the impugned judgement and decree and the third application contained a prayer to permit her to furnish security in lieu of the cash amount payable under the exparte decree. In other words, the prayer made in the third application for furnishing security was in order to ensure compliance of Sec. 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.