SUBODH KUMAR versus SHAMIM AHMED

SUBODH KUMAR versus SHAMIM AHMED

The Order 9 Rule 13 application filed by the respondent on 25.08.1998 was incompetent for non-compliance with the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 because no deposit of the entire decretal amount was made nor was there any previous application permitting the furnishing of security; further, deposits under Section 30(2) U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 did not constitute compliance since the Act was pleaded by the plaintiff as not applicable and the deposits made on the date of the Order 9 Rule 13 application were not the entire decretal amount. Consequently the High Court erred in remanding and setting aside the trial court and revisional court orders; the appeal...

Parties
Appellant (landlord): Subodh Kumar; Respondent (tenant): Shamim Ahmed
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 13.12.2018 and Order Dated 24.05.2019
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Recall of Ex Parte Decree, Proviso to Section 17 (deposit or Security), Deposit Under Section 30(2) U.p. Act No.13 of 1972, Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Execution of Decree, Sufficiency of Cause/condonation of Delay
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 U.p. Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Limitation Act Recall of Ex Parte Decree Proviso to Section 17 (deposit or Security) Deposit Under Section 30(2) U.p. Act No.13 of 1972 Order 9 Rule 13 CPC +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subodh Kumar

Appellant (landlord)

Shamim Ahmed

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 13.12.2018 and Order Dated 24.05.2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was complied with in the Order 9 Rule 13 application filed on 25.08.1998?
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had deposited the entire amount due on 25.08.1998 under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972?
  3. 3 Whether deposit under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 can be treated as deposit for the purposes of proviso to Section 17 of the Act, 1887?

Ratio Decidendi

The Order 9 Rule 13 application filed by the respondent on 25.08.1998 was incompetent for non-compliance with the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 because no deposit of the entire decretal amount was made nor was there any previous application permitting the furnishing of security; further, deposits under Section 30(2) U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 did not constitute compliance since the Act was pleaded by the plaintiff as not applicable and the deposits made on the date of the Order 9 Rule 13 application were not the entire decretal amount. Consequently the High Court erred in remanding and setting aside the trial court and revisional court orders; the appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court dated 13.12.2018 and order dated 24.05.2019 rejecting the review petition are set aside
  • Order of the trial court dated 19.04.2007 rejecting the respondent's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is upheld