Skip to content


Badlu Singh Vs. Panthu Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All270; 71Ind.Cas.474
AppellantBadlu Singh
RespondentPanthu Singh
Cases Referred and Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), section 17(1) prov. - application for restoration--unregistered bond of immoveable property given on date of application--cash security deposited next day, whether sufficient compliance with proviso. - - under these circumstances i must hold that the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of law as interpreted in the rulings of this court e......cause courts act was not complied with. that section requires that the applicant shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit the amount due from him or give security to the satisfaction of the court for the performance of the decree. in this case, the applicant gave a security bond on the date of his application. the next day the learned judge of the court below directed the applicant to deposit the amount in cash and the applicant did so in accordance with the order. the court below did not record the reason for passing this order but the reason is apparent on an examination of the security bond itself. the bond was one purporting to hypothecate immoveable property. it was, therefore, invalid without registration and it was not registered. under these.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order of a Small Cause Court restoring to the file? The application is based on the ground that Section 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act was not complied with. That section requires that the applicant shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit the amount due from him or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree. In this case, the applicant gave a security bond on the date of his application. The next day the learned Judge of the Court below directed the applicant to deposit the amount in cash and the applicant did so in accordance with the order. The Court below did not record the reason for passing this order but the reason is apparent on an examination of the security bond itself. The bond was one purporting to hypothecate immoveable property. It was, therefore, invalid without registration and it was not registered. Under these circumstances I must hold that the applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of law as interpreted in the rulings of this Court e.g., Jagan Nath v. Chet Ram 28 A. 470 A.W.N. (1906) 93 : 3 A.L.J. 318 and Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand 34 Ind. Cas. 113 : 38 A. 425 : 14 A.L.J. 549 nd Madras High Courts in which it was held that it was sufficient if the security was deposited by the applied cant within the period of thirty days allowed for making his application, but this is not the view which has prevailed in this High Court nor is it in accordance with the language of the section which specifically says that the security must be tendered 'at he time of presenting his application.' I accordingly allow this application and set aside the order of the Court below restoring the suit with costs of these proceedings in this Court and in the Court below.


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