In the matter of Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, a civil appeal was filed in opposition to the Allahabad High Court’s decision to dismiss the appellants’ writ petition and rule that no application for the removal of surety was made in that court’s ruling. The respondents in the case at hand were successful in getting an ex-parte decree for eviction and collection of rent arrears against the appellants. In an application submitted in accordance with Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants asserted knowledge of the Decree on execution proceedings. Additionally, a request was made in accordance with Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887. Another application was then submitted with the request that Nagar Nigam’s rental business, which served as security, be recorded. Although the Trial Court rejected the application made in accordance with Section 17 of the Act, the aforementioned application was approved. When considering a petition for review of the aforementioned Order of the Trial Court, the High Court expressed the opinion that the issue might be ordered to be resolved quickly after the surety had been accepted by the Court below. Due to the appellant’s compliance with Section 17(1) of the Act regarding the deposit of the decree amount and the sufficiency of the surety provided by the appellants, the Trial Court determined on the basis of the High Court’s Order that the appellant had complied with the Act. After that, the guarantee offered by the appellants was also rejected by the Trial Court together with the application submitted under Section 17 of the Act. The Order of the ADJ was contested by the appellants, who were offended by it, coupled with the appellants’ eviction Order based on the ex-parte decision, in front of the High Court. By the contested Order, the High Court dismissed the aforementioned writ petition, concluding that no application for a surety exemption had been made, that Section 17’s requirement was mandatory, and that the appellant’s failure to request a surety exemption would be interpreted against them.
Analysis of courts decision
The appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy of the Supreme Court, who ruled that the appellants’ security, a rented store owned by a third party, could not be legally recognised as a security.
The High Court’s decision to continue on the grounds that the appellants had not submitted any applications for the release of surety was incorrect, according to the Court. The High Court had undoubtedly said that there was no request to waive the surety or the sum requested to be put as security at some point, the Court added. The appellants asked for permission to accept a deposit furnishing surety of Rs. 50000, which was a portion of the decree’s sum. This might be seen implicitly as requesting guidance in the sense of Section 17. Undoubtedly, a candidate might also suggest the security that he would want to provide. According to the Court, an application for a directive to provide security and for the dispensing of the cash deposit should often be submitted before an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. As a result, the Court rejected the appeal after determining that it lacked merit.