Summary
A Small Causes Court in Raebareli decreed ex parte a landlord's suit for Rs. 8,000 arrears, eviction and Rs. 2,000 a month for use and occupation; the tenant sought to set aside the decree after depositing the arrears and costs but not the unquantified monthly damages, and the trial court and the Allahabad High Court rejected the application under the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, relying on Kedarnath. The Supreme Court allowed the tenant's heirs' appeal: the deposit requirement must be applied practically where the decree does not quantify the sum, the court could have extended time or demanded security, Kedarnath involved total non-compliance, and the appellants having deposited Rs. 1,90,000 towards rent to April 2023 deserve a trial on merits.
Issues
- Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree of a Small Causes Court must be rejected under the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 where the applicant deposited the quantified decretal amount and costs but not the unquantified monthly damages for use and occupation.
Provisions considered
- Section 17(1) proviso, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887An applicant to set aside an ex parte decree must deposit the amount due under the decree or furnish such security as the court directs on a previous application; the requirement is to be applied from a practical standpoint, and where the decree quantified only arrears and costs, which were deposited, the court could have called for further deposit or security rather than dismiss the application. (¶¶ 14, 15, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3)
- Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908On setting aside an ex parte decree the court may impose terms as to costs and payment into court; read with Section 17 of the 1887 Act it permits extension of time for deposit or security for performance of the decree. (¶¶ 14.1, 15, 15.1)
Held
- The defendant moved immediately on learning of the decree and deposited the sums directly quantified in it, so it was not a case of ignoring the deposit requirement altogether; the decree was for eviction as well as money, the trial court never quantified the damages due till the decree, and the courts below viewed Section 17 from an exacting and impractical standpoint. Kedarnath, where no deposit was made and no application for dispensation filed, is inapposite. (¶¶ 15.1, 15.2, 15.3)
- The appellants, on the Court's query, promptly deposited Rs. 1,90,000 towards rent and mesne profits from June 2015 to April 2023, and in a tenancy dispute where eviction is sought only for default in rent they deserve an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. (¶¶ 9, 10, 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; Allahabad High Court order dated 21.09.2022 and trial court order dated 01.09.2022 set aside; application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.03.2016/16.03.2016 in SCC Suit No. 1 of 2015 set aside, the suit restored for decision on merits with priority; appellants to file written statement by 28.02.2023 and parties to appear before the trial court on that date; plaintiff free to apply for withdrawal of the deposited amount; pending applications disposed of.