Skip to content


Amanulla Manjhi Vs. Ayfarjan Bibi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in62Ind.Cas.444a
AppellantAmanulla Manjhi
RespondentAyfarjan Bibi
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 153a - application to set aside ex parte rent-decree, when can be granted. - .....subsequently on the 10th january 1920 an application was made by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree. the munsif made an order setting aside the decree, application for time was rejected and one witness was examined who had no knowledge of the service of summons. whether the fasts stated by. the, munsif were sufficient to justify the court in setting aside the decree, it is not necessary to discuss here. the question for decision is whether the munsif complied with the provisions of section 153a of the bengal tenancy act. that section provides that where an application is made to set aside an ex parte decree, the application should not be admitted unless one of two things occurs, viz., (1) either the applicant deposits the amount of rent which he admits to be due or the amount.....
Judgment:

Beachcroft, J.

1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiff in a rent suit, the suit was brought against 11 persons and a decree was obtained ex parte in 1917. The holding was sold in 1918 and subsequently on the 10th January 1920 an application was made by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree. The Munsif made an order setting aside the decree, application for time was rejected and one witness was examined who had no knowledge of the service of summons. Whether the fasts stated by. the, Munsif were sufficient to justify the Court in setting aside the decree, it is not necessary to discuss here. The question for decision is whether the Munsif complied with the provisions of Section 153A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section provides that where an application is made to set aside an ex parte decree, the application should not be admitted unless one of two things occurs, viz., (1) either the applicant deposits the amount of rent which he admits to be due or the amount which the Court directs, or (2) the Court must state in writing that it is satisfied that no deposit is necessary Now, in this case the tenant denied that any rent was due, and no deposit was made. Therefore, the second of the two alternatives applied and the Court was not justified in admitting the application without recording in writing that it was satisfied that a deposit was not necessary. The Court failed to do that and that being so, the orders of the learned Munsif, dated the 23th June, must be set aside. The Rule is made absolute. As the opposite party has not appeared, I make no order as to costs.


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