GOPAL CHANDRA GHOSAL Vs. CHATTU ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short and important question that arises for decision in this application under Section 25 of the Provincial small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as "the application") is whether the Court can extend the time to furnish security or condone the delay in furnishing such security in view of proviso to section 17 (1) of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1)887 (hereinafter referred to as the act" ).

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the application are as follows : the Decree-holder/opposite Party instituted a suit before the Judge, small Cause Court at Sealdah for realisation of money against the judgment debtor/petitioner. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 17th of August, 1987. On 8th of January, 1988 the petitioner made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure and on the same date filed another application for furnishing security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the ex parte judgment and decree (hereinafter referred to as the "application for security" ). By an order, being Order No. 6 dated 12th of January, 1988, the petitioner was directed to furnish security by 28th of January, 1988. On 28th of january, 1988 the petitioner could not furnish the security but/ prayed for time to furnish such security. the Court granted time and fixed 23rd February, 1988 as the date for furnishing the said security. On 23rd of February, 1988 an application was filed by the petitioner for extension of time but the said application was rejected. Thereafter, on 22nd March, 1988 the petitioner made an application praying that the laches if there he any on the part of the petitioner may be condoned and the petitioner be given an opportunity to furnish the said Security. This application was opposed by the decree-holder/opposite party. By the impugned order being Order no. 11 dated 7th of April 1988, Sri D. K. Basu learned Judge, Small causes Court at Sealdah rejected the said application inter alia holding that as the judgment debtor did not furnish any security within the statutory period, prayer of the judgment debtor/petitioner for extension of time for furnishing scurity on condonation of delay could not be allowed against this order the judgment debtor/ petitioner has come to this Court under Section 25 of the Act.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the decree-holder/ opposite parry. I have perused the impugned order. I have also considered the maerials on record. After perusing the impugned order and the materials on record and on consideration of the submissions made by Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the view that the learned judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for extension of time or to condone the delay in furnishing the security in terms of proviso to Section 17 (1) of the act,