ANJANI KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition filed by the petitioner - tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 1 -11 -2003 passed by the revisional Court.
(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under. That the respondent -landlord, Kamlesh Kumar Pal filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner -tenant from the accommodation under his tenancy being suit No. 108 of 2001; Kamlesh Kumar Pal v. Smt. Paramshila Devi. The suit was decreed ex parte on 6 -5 -2002 by the trial Court. The petitioner - tenant, Smt. Paramshila Devi filed an application 4 -C for restoration of the suit with the prayer that the aforesaid ex parte decree may be set aside which was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 2002. The aforesaid restoration application was filed on the ground that the tenant had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit and the ex parte decree. The defendant -tenant had never been served with any notice nor received any summon issued from the trial Court and as such she could not appear when the suit proceeded ex parte. It is only when the decreed was put to execution, she came to know about the suit and then the tenant contacted her advocate and thus filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 6 -5 -2002. The tenant also filed an application for accepting the security bond as provided under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The aforesaid application was contested by the landlord. The trial Court after hearing the parties allowed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit to its original number. Aggrieved by this order passed by the trial Court, the respondent -landlord filed a revision being SCC Revision No. 13 of 2003. The revisional Court allowed the revision vide its judgment and order dated 1 -11 -2003 setting aside the order of the trial Court restoring the suit to its original number and rejected the restoration application 4 -C filed by the tenant. Thus, this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revisional Court has committed an error apparent on the face of record when it allowed the revision on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, inasmuch as the bond furnished by the petitioner was not stamped. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order Annexure 14 dated 17 -12 -2002 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has accepted the bond furnished by the petitioner in compliance with the proviso to Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.;