Summary
The Supreme Court restored rejection of the tenant’s application to set aside an ex parte Small Causes decree. Deposit of the full decretal amount, or security pursued through the statutory prior-application route, was a mandatory maintainability requirement. The rent deposits relied on were insufficient on the filing date and made under an enactment inapplicable to the building. Independently, sufficient cause for nonappearance was absent. Execution within three months and costs of Rs 25,000 were directed.
Issues
- Whether the statutory deposit or security requirement was fulfilled when recall was sought.
- Whether the earlier rent deposits could count as compliance.
- Whether sufficient cause justified setting aside the decree.
Provisions considered
- Section 17(1), proviso, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887Deposit or the prescribed security route was a mandatory condition precedent to entertaining the recall application. (¶¶ 21-29, 42, 52-55)
- Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Even statutory deposit compliance would not dispense with proof of sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree. (¶ 43-50)
Held
- The tenant neither deposited the decretal sum with the application nor sought the statutory security alternative by a previous application. This was a maintainability defect rather than a dispensable technicality. (¶¶ 21-29, 51-55)
- The amounts deposited before the application were less than the amount due; later deposits could not establish timely compliance. The rent-control enactment was inapplicable here, so deposits under it did not satisfy Section 17. The correctness of the distinguished High Court precedent was not finally decided. (¶ 30-42)
- The tenant also failed to show sufficient cause, given repeated opportunities and the unsuccessful earlier challenge to proceeding ex parte. Deposit compliance alone would not entitle a litigant to recall. (¶ 43-50)
- The High Court, review and consequential remand orders were set aside. Execution, delivery of possession and payment of the up-to-date decretal amount were directed within three months after production of the judgment, with Rs 25,000 costs. (¶ 56-58)
Result
Appeals allowed with Rs 25,000 costs; original rejection of recall restored and expedited execution directed.