ARTI DIXIT & ANR versus SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA & ORS

ARTI DIXIT & ANR versus SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA & ORS

The appellants failed to comply with the mandatory proviso to Section 17 because they did not deposit the decretal amount nor furnish acceptable, legally enforceable security prior to or along with the application; the shop offered as surety was owned by the Municipal Corporation and not the surety, hence not enforceable under Section 145 CPC; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellants: ARTI DIXIT & ANR; Respondents: SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA & ORS
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree, Security Under Section 17 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Order IX Rule 13 CPC, Enforcement Under Section 145 CPC, Deposit of Decretal Amount
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Limitation Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree Security Under Section 17 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 Order IX Rule 13 CPC Enforcement Under Section 145 CPC Deposit of Decretal Amount

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ARTI DIXIT & ANR

Appellants

SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA & ORS

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an applicant to set aside an ex-parte decree under the proviso to Section 17 must deposit the decretal amount or give security on a previous application
  2. 2 Whether a security in the form of a rented shop belonging to a municipal corporation is enforceable and acceptable under Section 17(2) read with Section 145 CPC
  3. 3 Whether failure of the court to pass an order on an application under Section 17 prejudices the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to comply with the mandatory proviso to Section 17 because they did not deposit the decretal amount nor furnish acceptable, legally enforceable security prior to or along with the application; the shop offered as surety was owned by the Municipal Corporation and not the surety, hence not enforceable under Section 145 CPC; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • There shall be no order as to costs