Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Section 17 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
Tarachand Hirachand Porwal vs Durappa Tavanappa Patravali on 9 October, 1942
616.
The learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice
Surendra Nath Mittal Vs. Dayanand Swarup and Anr. AIR 1987
Allahabad 132, Chigurupalli Suryanarayana Vs. The
Amadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.
AIR 1975 A.P. 196 and Tarachand Hirachand Porwal Vs. Durappa
Tavanappa Patravali AIR 1943 Bombay 237. All the three
decisions are single Bench decisions. Suffice it to observe that the
first two decisions are more or less ad hoc decisions which do not
notice other decisions and the general trend of judicial opinion. The
view propounded therein does not appeal to us. The Bombay decision
does not lay down any general proposition of law and proceeds on its
own facts.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vembu Ammal vs Esakkia Pillai on 7 October, 1948
The object behind establishing Small Cause Courts conferred
with jurisdiction to try summarily such specified category of cases
which need to be and are capable of being disposed of by adopting
summary procedure of trial is to secure an expeditious disposal and to
curtail the lengthy procedure of litigation. Excepting an order for
compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or
defences or an order imposing fine or directing the arrest or detention
in the civil prison of any person (except where such arrest or detention
is in execution of a decree), orders and decrees of courts of small
causes are not appealable: they are only revisable by the High Court
(or by District Court under Section 115 of CPC as amended in its
application to State of U.P.). The jurisdiction to entertain and hear an
application to set aside a decree passed ex-parte or for a review of
judgment by courts of small causes is sought to be qualified and
narrow down by imposing condition as to deposit or giving security
for performance or compliance by enacting proviso to sub-section (1).
Such a provision fits in the scheme of the PSCC Act. Although there
is no authoritative pronouncement by this Court (none brought to our
notice) interpreting the nature and scope of the proviso however, the
learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice a number of
decisions delivered by the High Courts of Allahabad, Oudh, Madras,
Orissa, Rajasthan and Lahore which have taken the view that the
proviso is mandatory and non-compliance therewith would entail
dismissal of the application because such non-compliance cannot be
condoned or overlooked by the court. They are, to wit : Mohammad
Ramzan Khan Vs. Khubi Khan AIR 1938 Lahore 18 (DB), Murari
Lal Vs. Mohammad Yasin AIR 1939 Allahabad 46, Mt. Shikhani
Vs. Bishambhar Nath AIR 1941 Oudh 103, Jagdamba Prasad & Ors.
Vs. Ram Das Singh & Anr. AIR 1943 Allahabad 288, Roshan Lal
Vs. Brij Lal Amba Lal Shah- AIR 1944 Oudh 104, Vembu Amal Vs.
Esakkia Pillai AIR 1949 Madras 419, Khetra Dolai Vs. Mohan
Bissoyi AIR 1961 Orissa 37, and Dhanna Vs. Arjun Lal AIR 1963
Rajasthan 240. As the present case arises from the State of Uttar
Pradesh, the learned counsel for the appellant cited a series of
decisions delivered by Allahabad High Court so as to show the view
of the law being consistently taken there.