B.K. Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel of the petitioners and the learned counsel who has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent No. 3. The learned counsel of the petitioners has submitted that the Judge, Small Causes Court, in rejecting the application by which the petitioners had summoned the counter -foil of the receipts, has committed material illegality inasmuch as the petitioners' right to rebut the landlord's case of sub -tenancy stands rejected.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the application of the petitioners was legally misconceived. The rent receipts were admitted by the landlord's counsel. The rent receipts or the counter -foils do not establish sub -tenancy and the counterfoils in no case can possibly help the petitioners in disproving the claim of sub -tenancy. The result is that the Judge, Small Cause Court has rightly rejected the application. The learned District Judge, Saharanpur, while hearing the revision at admission stage, has taken a view that the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court does not amount to case decided and that no material loss has been caused to the petitioners. The view taken by the learned District Judge in dismissing the revision also does not suffer from any material illegality. I am, therefore, of the view that no ground for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.;