Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) CAN a civil revision instituted under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act be dismissed for default of appearance? On this point there is a conflict of opinion in this Court. Chhotey Lal v. III Addl. Distt. Judge, 1982 UPRCC 508 and Molid. Sajed Quresi v. Mst. Sabira : 1979 AWC 775 held that such a revision cannot be dismissed in default. On the other hand, in Ram Muni Singh v. Gyanendra Kumar Arya : 1981 AWC 791 it was held that the Court has jurisdiction to dismiss a revision if no one appears to press it. In order to resolve this controversy a learned Single Judge has referred these two connected writ petitions to a larger Bench. That is how the matter has come before us.
(2.) THE Petitioner in the writ petition is the tenant of two adjoining houses. The landlord -Respondent filed two Small Cause Court suits against the Petitioner for his ejectment and recovery of rent and damages. The Judge Small Cause Court, in due course, decreed the suit. The tenant went up in revision. On the date fixed, for the hearing of the revision, namely, on July 2, 1982 no one appeared on behalf of the tenant -applicant. The Court dismissed the revisions for default of appearance. The tenant made an application for the setting aside of the exparte decree. This application was allowed on condition of depositing the entire decretal amount or furnishing security therefore within seven days and payment of Rs. 20/ - as costs. These conditions were not fulfilled. Hence the restoration application stood dismissed. Aggrieved, the tenant came to this Court. He submitted that the revisions could not be dismissed for default of appearance. It was incumbent upon the District Judge to examine the judgment of the trial Court and decide the revision on merits. In support, reliance was placed upon Chhotey Lal's case (supra). In this case a revision under Section 25 of the Pr.S.C.C. Act was dismissed in default because the applicant was absent. The learned Judge held: The Court below was dealing with the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Section 25 provides that the revision lies to the Court for examining whether the judgment of the Judge Small Causes was according to law. Thus there would be no scope for dismissal in default. The revisional Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act had to examine the judgment of the trial Court in accordance with that section and decide the revision on merits.
(3.) IN Mohd. Sajed (supra) the position was that a revision under Section 25 of the Pr.S.C.C. Act was dismissed for default. The application for restoration was rejected by the District Judge on the ground that there was no provision for restoration of a civil revision dismissed for default. Before the High Court the only point canvassed was whether the District Judge had power to restore the revision dismissed for default. A learned Single Judge held: Once the District Judge was of the view that there was no provision for dismissal of a revision for default he could not have dismissed the revision but if it was dismissed inspite of absence of provision the same could be restored even if there was no provision for restoration.;