2700 in cash as directed by the companyrt.
After an unsuccessful revision petition to the District Court under Section 25 of the Act, the appellant moved a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
2700 in cash and for the balance of the decretal amount, he was directed to give an adequate security.
A full bench of Madras High Court in Kalapati Peda Pitchamma and Ans.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The suit came to be adjourned for hearing to August 6, 1977.
368 situated in Adarsh Colony, Civil Line, Rampur against the present appellant.
Accordingly the learned judge held that as the appellant had failed to submit a valid surety bond duly stamped, within the period of limitation, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 was incomplete and ineffective and has been rightly dismissed by the Small Causes Court.
In companypliance with this order, the appellant supplied requisite stamps for the bond on October 5, 1977.
in respect of House No.
Subsequently on August 31, 1977, the applicant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC requesting the Court to set aside the exparte decree submitting that on August 6, 1977 when the suit was called on for hearing, he was prevented by a sufficient cause from remaining present in person because he had suddenly taken ill and neither he companyld remain present number companyld he inform his advocate about his illness.
On that day, the appellant and his advocate were absent and the suit was decreed exparte.
Simultaneously, he deposited Rs.
On August 6, 1977, appellant appeared and moved an application under the proviso to Section 17 1 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 Act for short requesting the Court to permit him to give such security for the performance of the decree in lieu of the liability to deposit in cash the amount due from him under the decree.
The application of the appellant was accordingly dismissed.
On the same day, the Court granted him the permission subject to the companydition that the appellant shall deposit Rs.
On September 21, 1977, Manasarim of the Court reported that the security bond furnished by the appellant was number duly stamped number was it drawn on an appropriate stamp paper.
The decree holder companytested the application for setting aside the exparte decree inter alia companytending that there was number compliance with the mandatory provision companytained in the proviso to Section 17 1 of the Act and therefore the application purporting to have been made under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the exparte decree was incomplete and was liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
The Court directed the appellant to furnish the requisite stamps within a week.
On service of the summons, the appellant appeared and companytested the suit by filing his written statement.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court after numbericing the companyflict of opinion between the Madras and Calcutta High Court preferred the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court that a surety bond as companytemplated by the proviso to Section 17 1 of the Act would be governed by the Indian Stamp Act.
A. Desai, J. Third respondent Smt.
Savitiri Devi filed a small causes case No.
43/76 in the Court of Civil Judge, Rampur designated as Court of Small Causes for recovering arrears of rent, electricity charges etc.
