- (1.)Present civil revision is filed by the revisionist-tenant against the order dated 16.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption C.B.I., Court No.5, Lucknow exercising powers of Judge, Small Causes Courts in Misc. Case No.260 C of 2015. By the said order the Court below has rejected the application Paper No.B-3 of the revisionist-defendant filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for recalling ex-parte final judgment dated 06.05.2015. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 was rejected on the ground that the revisionist-defendant has failed to deposit the decreetal amount and cost of the case, as required under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (SCC Act), while filing application under Order 9 Rule 13. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 was also rejected otherwise on merits.
(2.)Facts of the case are that revisionist-defendant was tenant of Shop No.1 situated on the ground floor of the Pratap Complex, Sheikhpur Kasaila, Faizabad Road, Lucknow of the landlord-respondents. After giving a notice, terminating the tenancy of the revisionist-defendant, respondent-landlord filed SCC Suit No.57 of 2011 for eviction and for recovery of rents amounting to Rs.23,700/-, for damages for use of occupation amounting to Rs.1080/- and also for damages penditilite and future at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. The said suit was filed on 31.05.2011. The revisionist-defendant appeared through counsel on 16.03.2012. It appears that thereafter revisionist-defendant stopped appearing in the case and, by order dated 03.05.2013, the Court below directed the case to proceed ex-parte against the revisionist-defendant. No steps were taken thereafter to recall order dated 03.05.2013. On 06.05.2015, the suit was decreed ex-parte for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages against the revisionist-defendant. On 07.08.2015, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC (Paper No.B-3) was filed. Along with the application under Order 9 Rule 13, under Section 17 of the SCC Act, a deposit of Rs.30,000/- was made. The same was registered as Misc. Case No.260-C of 2015. The objections against application under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed and an objection was taken that the revisionist-defendant has not made complete compliance of Section 17 of the SCC Act and the deposit made falls short. On 04.05.2016 further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited and, thus, a total amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was deposited by the revisionist-defendant. The Court below after hearing the counsels for parties found that neither there is compliance of Section 17 of SCC Act, on the date of filing of application under Order 9 Rule 13, i.e., 07.08.2015, nor the case for recall is made out on merits.
(3.)Challenging the said order, counsel for the revisionist-defendant submits that revisionist-defendant had instructed her counsel to look after the matter and the counsel had assured her that he would look after the matter and would inform the revisionist-defendant as and when required. Counsel for the revisionist-defendant further submits that the ex-parte judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Court below is vague and confusing and for the said reason, the entire amount could not be deposited by the revisionist-defendant. For the said purposes, he refers to concluding portion of the ex-parte order dated 06.05.2015 which reads:-