PEETHALA VENKATARATNAM Vs. MUDDALA AGASTHEESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for determination to this C. R. P. is, whether the filing of a draft bond along with an application for setting aside the ex parte decree made in a samll cause suit is sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act?

(2.) It appears that a decree was passed ex parte against the first defendant-petitioner herein on 22-8-1960. The ground urged for non-appearance was that a sister-in-law of the petitioner was sick, and as such he could not attend the Court. Along with the petition filed to set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioner submitted a draft bond, offering security in a sum of Rs. 500.00, i.e., for more than the decretal amount and the costs. Thereupon, the Court passed an order to test the security. Notices were also ordered to the other side, and the plaintiff-respondent filed objections on 16-12-1960. The main objection was that the property was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the decree. The matter was posted *or hearing, but no orders seem to have been passed either accepting or rejecting the security. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree came up for nearing before the lower court and it was urged before it that as no previous application was filed in compliance with the provisions of Section 17, the petition was not maintainable.

(3.) The learned Mtinsif held that as no prior application for obtaining a direction was filed, there has not been sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 17. In that view, he dismissed the petition. The revision petition is- directed against this order.