Skip to content


Kamla Prasad Agarwal Vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 6700 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1981All313
ActsProvincial Small Cuase courts Act, 1887 - Sections 17
AppellantKamla Prasad Agarwal
RespondentSmt. Savitri Devi and anr.
Advocates:S.C. Budhwar, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
civil - deposit of decreed amount in court - section 17 of provincial cause court act,1887 - application of judgment debtor to set aside ex-party decree - trial court allowed so subject to deposit of decreed amount cash in court -judgment debtor requests that he will furnish security bond instead of depositing decreed amount in court - court rejected this request and dismissed application - civil writ filled in high court also dismissed - held, lower court was right it is discretion of court whether to ask to furnish bond or to deposit suit amount and not the right of party. - - which was well within time......decree against the defendant on the 3rd august, 1979. an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made on 16-8-1979, i.e. which was well within time. a prayer was made by the defendant that he should be allowed to file security bond instead of depositing the decretal amount in cash. this prayer was refused on 18-8-1979. thereafter the defendant did not deposit the decretal amount with the result that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was rejected. counsel urged that proviso to section 17 of the act gives two options to the defaulting defendant, the first being to deposit the decretal amount in cash, and the other to furnish security. the contention is plainly untenable. so far as security is concerned that can be furnished only when the court directs.....
Judgment:
ORDER

C.S.P. Singh, J.

The Small Causes Court passed an ex parte decree against the defendant on the 3rd August, 1979. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made on 16-8-1979, i.e. which was well within time. A prayer was made by the defendant that he should be allowed to file security bond instead of depositing the decretal amount in cash. This prayer was refused on 18-8-1979. Thereafter the defendant did not deposit the decretal amount with the result that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was rejected. Counsel urged that proviso to Section 17 of the Act gives two options to the defaulting defendant, the first being to deposit the decretal amount in cash, and the other to furnish security. The contention is plainly untenable. So far as security is concerned that can be furnished only when the Court directs that instead of the decretal amount being deposited the defendant shall furnish security. The use of the words 'either' and 'or' in the proviso does not lead to the result suggested by counsel that the option rests with the defendant, and not with the Court. This is plain from the facts that the defendant has to furnish such security as the Court 'may have directed'. These concluding words of the proviso leave the option with the Court and not with the defendant. The writ petition fails, and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //