https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283890 A surety bond filed under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was treated as a procedural safeguard for securing the decretal amount, so a curable stamp defect did not justify rejection of an Order 9 Rule 13 application when the application was filed in time and the defect was later corrected. The Court also held that a litigant who acted promptly in line with one of two conflicting legal views on the bond's stamp requirement should not lose substantive relief because the issue was later resolved against that view. The ex parte decree and the orders below were set aside. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Oct 2019 16:15:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283890 A surety bond filed under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was treated as a procedural safeguard for securing the decretal amount, so a curable stamp defect did not justify rejection of an Order 9 Rule 13 application when the application was filed in time and the defect was later corrected. The Court also held that a litigant who acted promptly in line with one of two conflicting legal views on the bond's stamp requirement should not lose substantive relief because the issue was later resolved against that view. The ex parte decree and the orders below were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283890