PADMA AGARWAL Vs. PREMVIDA JAITLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question which falls for consideration in the instant revision is regarding compliance of section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act') while seeking an order to set aside a decree passed exparte by Court of Small Causes. The court below has held that though the revisionists have deposited the arrears of rent and damages decreed by the trial court, but they have failed to deposit proportionate amount of water tax and sewer tax. It has refused to grant further time to make good the shortfall in view of the law laid down by this Court in Shahjahan Begum v. Smt. Nigar Kaushar, 2011 (2) ARC 813. The restoration application filed by the revisionists has been rejected for non-compliance of Section 17 of the Act.

(2.) The facts in brief necessary for disposal of the instant revision are as follows:-

(3.) The service of summons on the tenants was held sufficient by refusal. On 19.11.2012, the Court of Small Causes decreed the suit. The operative part of the judgement is as follows:-