Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) Facts of both these cases are same, therefore, are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.3.2013 passed in SCC Suit No. 25 of 2010.
(3.) An SCC Suit No. 6 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 28.8.2010. Being aggrieved the respondents filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 which was registered as Revision No. 25 of 2010. In the said revision an amendment application was filed by the respondents which was rejected by the court below holding that the amendment is to be sought at the final stage of the hearing of . the revision and the matter is being pending for the past 22 years. That order was challenged by the respondents and this Court rejected the writ petition of the respondents being Writ Petition No. 11333 of 2012 (Sikandar v. Additional District Judge Court No. 4 and another ). The operative portion of the order is quoted below : "The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has succeeded in delaying the delivery of judgment. The Revisional Court shall make all endeavours to decide the Revision expeditiously. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.";