# Arun Kumar Verma (Arun Kumar Mishra) & Anr. Revisionist v. Ramakant Verma

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 402
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-19
- **Case number:** SCC Revision No. 4 of 2016
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-kumar-verma-arun-kumar-mishra-anr-revisionist-v-ramakant-verma-54030
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Since the respondents no. 2, 3, and 4 have died, as such, the Tribunal is directed to pay the
remaining amount of compensation to the surviving legal heir, i.e., respondent no. 1, Smt. Luxmi
Devi, in accordance with law.

25. Office is directed to send back the lower court record, forthwith.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 402
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

SCC Revision No. 4 of 2016

Arun Kumar Verma (Arun Kumar Mishra) & Anr. ...Revisionist
Versus
Ramakant Verma ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the District Judge has rejected the recall application by placing reliance upon the Section 17 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 without considering that the revisionists on the very same date had
moved an application for providing time for giving the security, so the order is bad in the eyes of law and
deprived the revisionists from getting justice on the technical ground.

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order IX Rule 13; The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
1887- Sections 17 & 25- The proviso of Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1887 is very clear that
application seeking setting aside of decree passed ex-parte or for a review of judgment must be
accompanied with either depositing in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in
pursuance of the judgment, or giving such security for the performance of the decree or
compliance with the judgment as the Court had directed on a previous application made by
revisionists in this regard.
Held- It is admitted as well as pleaded case of the revisionists that they had moved an application for
providing time for giving security on 06.12.2025 i.e. on the date when their application under Order IX Rule
13 CPC was rejected meaning thereby, it is an admitted and undisputed case that at the time of presentation
of the application for recall under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 25.07.2025, the revisionists had neither deposited
the amount nor had moved any application for submitting the security, hence, there is no illegality or infirmity
in the order impugned - Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Kedarnath Vs. Mohan Lal Kesarwari and others reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 582

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

List of Keywords
1 All. Arun Kumar Verma (Arun Kumar Mishra) & Anr. Vs. Ramakant Verma
403
Section 17(1); PSCC Act; Application U/O IX R 13; Must be accompanied with either depositing in the
Court the amount due; Under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment; or giving such security for the
performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court had directed

Case Arising From
Against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2025 and the formal order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the
District Judge, Barabanki in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2024 whereby the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.
filed by the revisionists was dismissed.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shujat Kidwai, Mohammad Asad Mahmood
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ghufran Hussain

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shujat Kidwai, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Ghufran Hussain,
learned counsel for the respondent/caveator.

2. With the consent of respective parties, the present revision is being decided at the admission
stage itself.

3. The present S.C.C. Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
06.12.2025 and the formal order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the District Judge, Barabanki in
S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2024 whereby the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the
revisionists was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that an ex-parte decree/order was passed
on 20.01.2025 in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2024. Against which, the revisionists had preferred a recall
application on 25.07.2025 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.. The said application was accepted by
Additional District Judge by order dated 17.10.2025 but on 06.12.2025, the District Judge has
rejected the recall application by placing reliance upon the Section 17 of the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1887) without considering that the
revisionists on the very same date had moved an application for providing time for giving the
security, so the order is bad in the eyes of law and deprived the revisionists from getting justice on
the technical ground.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per Section 17
of the Act, 1887, the revisionists had to move an application for recall/review etc accompanied
therewith the amount due under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment. In case to dispense
with the same, the application for recall must be accompanied with an application seeking direction
of the Court for leave to furnish security but the application for recall preferred by the revisionists
was neither accompanied with the decreetal amount nor any application to furnish the security
despite the fact that the said condition is mandatory in nature as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Vs. Mohan Lal Kesarwari and others reported in AIR
2002 Supreme Court 582, hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned herein passed by the
District Judge, Barabanki.
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, going through the record of the
case, the relevant provisions and the judgment relied by learned counsel for the respondent, the
position which emerges out as in the present case is that it is an undisputed fact between the parties
that against the decree dated 20.01.2025, the revisionists had preferred a recall application on
25.07.2025 without accompanying therewith the decreetal amount and as per proviso to the Section
17 (1), the revisionists has also not filed any application to dispense with the deposit at the time of
filing of the recall application. For convenience, Section 17 (1) of the Act 1887 is being reproduced
hereinbelow:-

"17. Application of the Code of Civil Procedure- (1) [the procedure prescribed in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall save in so far as is otherwise provided by that
Code or by this Act] be the procedure followed in a Court of Small Causes, in all suits cognizable
by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits:

Provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte or for a
review of judgment shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the
amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give [ such security for
the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may, on a previous
application made by him in this behalf, have directed].

(2) Where a person has become liable as surety under the proviso to sub section (1), the
security may be realised in manner provided by section of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. The proviso of Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1887 is very clear that application seeking setting
aside of decree passed ex-parte or for a review of judgment must be accompanied with either
depositing in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment,
or giving such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the
Court had directed on a previous application made by revisionists in this regard. The said condition
is mandatory in nature as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath (supra) relied by
learned counsel for the respondent/caveator. The relevant paras of the said judgment and order is
being quoted hereinbelow :-

"8. A bare reading of the provision shows that the Legislature have chosen to couch the
language of the proviso in a mandatory form and we see no reason to interpret, construe and hold
the nature of the proviso as directory. An application seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed
by a Court of Small Causes or for a review of its judgment must be accompanied by a deposit in the
Court of the amount due from the applicant under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment. The
provision as to deposit can be dispensed with by the Court in its discretion subject to a previous
application by the applicant seeking direction of the Court for leave to furnish security and the
nature thereof. The proviso does not provide for the extent of time by which such application for
dispensation may be filed. We think that it may be filed at any time up to the time of presentation of
application for setting aside ex parte decree or for review and the Court may treat it as a previous
application. The obligation of the applicant is to move a previous application for dispensation. It is
then for the Court to make a prompt order. The delay on the part of the Court in passing an
appropriate order would not be held against the applicant because none can be made to suffer for
the fault of the Court.
1 All. Smt. Arju @ Vimal Vs. Umakant Parasar
405

9. In the case at hand, the application for setting aside ex parte decree was not
accompanied by deposit in the Court of the amount due and payable by the applicant under the
decree. The applicant also did not move any application for dispensing with deposit and seeking
leave of the Court for furnishing such security for the performance of the decree as the Court may
have directed. The application for setting aside the decree was therefore incompetent. It could not
have been entertained and allowed"

8. It is admitted as well as pleaded case of the revisionists that they had moved an application
for providing time for giving security on 06.12.2025 i.e. on the date when their application under
Order IX Rule 13 CPC was rejected meaning thereby, it is an admitted and undisputed case that at
the time of presentation of the application for recall under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 25.07.2025,
the revisionists had neither deposited the amount nor had moved any application for submitting the
security, hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned dated 06.12.2025 and
formal order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the District Judge, Barbanki passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 1
of 2024, thus, no interference is called for.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present
S.C.C. Revision is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 405
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 1027 of 2023

Smt. Arju @ Vimal ...Applicant
Versus
Umakant Parasar ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Transfer application filed deserves to be allowed on the ground of categorical "No Objection"
expressed on behalf of the Opposite Party

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 24; The Hindu Marriage Act,1955-Section 13- When
transfer is sought and is not opposed, and the Court finds no legal impediment, such transfer
would clearly subserve the ends of justice. The requirement of recording reasons is sufficiently
met by noting the consent of parties coupled with the Court's satisfaction regarding the
propriety of transfer- In matrimonial proceedings, Courts have observed that the convenience of
the wife deserves due consideration, and that the cardinal principle governing exercise of power
under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should be subserved.
Held- In view of the hardship that has been pleaded by the applicant and the categorical "No Objection"
expressed on behalf of the Opposite Party, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is a fit