Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 128 (ALL)

Ram Niwas Gupta v. Ziauddin

2019-01-17

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed challenging an order dated 24.8.2017, whereby the revisional court has admitted the revision filed before it under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act'). 2. In nut-shell the facts of the case are that a suit for eviction of the nature of small causes was filed by the petitioner before the Court of Small Causes. It was registered as SCC Suit No.51 of 2014. The defendant-tenant did not comply with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, consequently, his defence was struck off. The suit was decreed by judgment and order dated 18.4.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed revision under Section 25 of the Act, which has been admitted by the impugned order rejecting the contention of the petitioner that without requiring the defendant-tenant to deposit the decreetal amount, the revision could not be admitted. 3. Section 25, under which the revision has been filed, does not stipulate any pre-condition for deposit of decreetal amount for entertaining the revision. The court, in appropriate case, as a condition for grant of stay against eviction, may direct a tenant to deposit decreetal amount or such other amount as it may consider proper. However, it cannot be made a pre-condition for admitting the revision. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Vs. Mohan Lal Kesarwani and others, (2002) AIR SC 582 in support of his contention that revision could not be admitted without the tenant depositing the decreetal amount. He placed reliance upon Section 17 of the Act. Once again, the submission is wholly misconceived. Section 17 would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case, as the requirement of depositing the decreetal amount under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 is applicable where a person applies for setting aside an order passed ex-parte or for review of a judgment. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath (supra) was also rendered in the context of the proviso to Section 17. The Supreme Court has observed that application for setting aside ex-parte decree would not be maintainable, if it was not accompanied by deposit of decreetal amount in the court. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath (supra) was also rendered in the context of the proviso to Section 17. The Supreme Court has observed that application for setting aside ex-parte decree would not be maintainable, if it was not accompanied by deposit of decreetal amount in the court. The aforesaid observation was made in the context of proviso to Section 17 which, as noted above, is not attracted. 5. The petition is misconceived and is dismissed. 6. In the end, counsel for the petitioner prayed that the revision may be expedited. 7. Having regard to the fact that the revision is pending for more than a year, the revisional court is directed to make endeavour to decide the revision expeditiously.