BHAGWAN DASS ARORA versus FIRST ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE, RAMPUR

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 25-07-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHAGW AN DASS ARORA 
v. 
FIRST ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE, RAMPUR 
July 25, 1983 
[D. A. DESAI AND R. B. MISRA JJ.] 
r 
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887-Proviso to s. 17(1)-Surety 
Bond-Whether governed by Art. 6 of Schedule 2 oj the Court-fee Act or Art. 57 
of the Indian Stan1p Act-existing conflict of opinion betfVeen !tladras and Calcutta 
A 
B 
High Courts-Left unresolved. Surety bond furnished on Court-fee of Rs. 2 
C 
found not duly stamped-Requisite stamp under the Indian Stamp Act supplied. 
Jn this situation by preferring one view to thi! o//ier a litigant cannot be thrown 
out of the court. 
In compliance with the orders of the court under the proviso to s, 17(1) 
of the Provincial Small Cause Couits Act the appellant, against whom an 
ex-parte decree had been passed, filed within the period of limitation a surety 
bond· for a certain amount. The surety bond was stamped with a courl-fee of 
Rs. 2. After an application under Order 9, r. 13 of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure for setting aSide the ex-par.te decree was· filed by the appellant the court, 
on a report from its Munasarim that the surety bond was not duly stamped, 
directed the appellant to furnish the ·requisite stamps within a weca. The 
appellant supplied requisite stamps for the bond as required by the provisions 
of the Indian Stamp Act. Tl:e trial court dismissed the application on the 
ground that on or before the date of its. filing the appellant had failed tt;> 
furnish surety bond duly stamped and the surety bond furnished by the 
appellant on a court-fee stamp of.Rs. 2 being not a legal document, there was 
non-compliance with the proviso t6 s .. 17(1). After an unsuccessful.revision 
petition to the District Judge the appellant filed a petition, under Art. 227 in 
High COurt. After having noticed the conflict of opinion between the Madras 
and calcutta High Courts, a .single Judge of the High Court dismissed the 
petition and held that the surety bond must be duly stamped as required by 
the Indian Stamp Act. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : In the situation of this case the litigant cannnot be visited 
with the Consequence of being thrown out of court and shutting the doors of 
justice in his face. [498 E] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The pre(erences of Judges should not be allowed to work hardship on 
H 
litigant in respect of a procedural provisiori. Justice cannot be .a playground 
by kicking the ball from one court to other depending upon which of conflicting 
views will ultimately prevail leaving a litigant on the tenterhooks and ultima-
tely to be told that he acteCt according to the view taken by a Full Bench of a 
494 
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS 
tt983j 3 s.c.R. 
High Court which did nOt find favour with the learned fingle Judge of the High 
A 
. Court of the State in which he resided. This is not justice. This is legalese 
which ought to be avoided. [498 G-H, 499A] 
c 
In the instant case what horrible agonising situation, thq appellant faced 
cannot be guaged. He had,produced the surety bond on the first day duly 
stamped as then advised. And had. the learned Single Judge prCferred t'he 
Madras view which required that it should be stamped with court-fee stamp 
the appellant was fullY protected. To his utter misfortune, the Calcutta vie~ 
found favour with the learned Single Judge and the appetlant suffered the 
irremediable consequence of this later day preference. [498 E-FJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civi[ Appeal No. 2982 of 
1983. 
• 
Appeal l;>y Special leave fropi the Judgment and Order dated 
the 9th April, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ 
No. 1907of1980. 
D . 
Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Miss Shushi Kiran and Miss Nishi Puri 
E 
F 
G 
H 
for the Appellant. 
K.K. Gupta for Respondent No. 3. 
A~. Ratnaparkhl for Respondent Nos. 4 & 6. 
The Judgment of the Court was d'e!ivered by 
. DESAI, J. Third respondent Smt. Savitjri Devi filed· a· small 
causes case No. 43/76 in the Court of Civil Judge, Rampur designa-
ted as Court of Small Causes for recovering arrears of rent, electr;city 
charges etc. in respect of House No. 368 situated in Adarsh Colony, 
Civil Line, Rampur against the present appellant. On service of the 
summons, the appellant appeared and contested the suit by filing his 
written statement. The suit came to be adjourned for he~ring to 
August 6, 1977. On that day, the appellant and his advocate were 
absent and the 
suit · was decreed exparte. On Augmt 8, 1977, 
appellant appeared and moved an application under th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.