DAYA RAM and ANR. v. A.D.J. S.C. and S.T. ACTLUCKNOW and ANR.
WRIA/1000015/2006 · 2025-04-30
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 139649 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 139649 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24900 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000015 of 2006 Petitioner :- Daya Ram And Anr. Respondent :- A.D.J. S.C. And S.T. Actlucknow And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash,Amit Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash,Umair Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. C.M. Application No.169227 of 2021
1. The present application has been filed along with the delay condonation application seeking substitution on account of the death of the petitioner no. 2.
2. The delay in filing the substitution application condoned.
3. The substitution application is allowed.
4. Let necessary incorporation be carried out during the course of the day.
Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Arun
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000015 of 2006 Petitioner :- Daya Ram And Anr. Respondent :- A.D.J. S.C. And S.T. Actlucknow And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash,Amit Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash,Umair Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 16.11.2005 whereby the revision preferred against an order dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 came to be allowed.
3. The facts in brief are that the suit filed by the petitioner- landlord was decreed on 20.01.2003 exparte, against which, an application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 pleading that the opposite party was unwell and could not attend the proceedings. The said application was dismissed by the JSCC Court vide order dated 18.11.2004 holding that the cause shown for non appearance was not sufficient, against which a revision was preferred which has been allowed vide order dated
16.11.2005.
4. Admittedly, there was no compliance of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, which is a mandatory provision. In the absence of deposit of decretal amount, no application could have been entertained and was rightly dismissed by the JSCC Court. The revisional Court is silent with regard to non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.
5. In view thereof, said order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The decree passed by the JSCC Court on 20.01.2003 is affirmed. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench