KALLU MAL Vs. CHBIKRAMAJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON- 20 January 1930, an ex parte decree was passed in favour of Kallu Mai by a Court of Small Causes for a sum of Rs. 792-2-3 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The decree also allowed Re. 108-8-0 as costs to the plaintiff. ON 4 November, 1930, the defendant applied to set aside the ex parte decree under Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. His application was accompanied by a deposit and the deposit amounted to a sum of Rs. 934-2-3. The Court below considered that the conditions of Section 17, Provincial Small. Cause Courts Act, were fulfilled and it accordingly set aside the ex parte decree. It has been contended that the amount deposited in the Court of. Small Causes fell short by a small amount and the Court had therefore no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte decree. Our attention has been drawn to a ruling of this Court in Bisesar Ram Dassi Ram V/s. Har Kishan Pahlad Rai A.I.R 1925 All 412 in which it has been held by a learned Judge of this Court that on a construction of Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the words "the amount due under the decree" mean "the amount due under the decree at the date it was given" and not "the amount due under the decree at the date when the application for restoration was presented." This ruling is of the year 1925. There is no published decision, that we know of in which a contrary view has been taken. The ruling in question therefore was an authority for the defendant in depositing in Court the amount which was equivalent to the amount which ex facie was due on the decree on the date when the decree was passed. The Small Cause Court Judge in entertaining the application under Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, was bound by this ruling. Even assuming that the case referred to above may at some time require consideration we are of opinion that this is a case in which the revisional jurisdiction of this Court should not be exercised in favour of the plaintiff under Section 25 of the Act because we think that substantial justice has been done-We accordingly dismiss this application with costs.