- (1.) Heard Sri R.S. Pande, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.K. Dixit, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for petitioners are that plaintiff/respondent No. 3 who is owner/landlord of Shop No. 1110 Gola Bajar, Sadar Bajar, City and District Lucknow filed a suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioners, registered as SCC Suit No. 121 of 2000 before Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, allowed by judgment and decree dated 19.02.2008. Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioner/tenant filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial of Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 registered as Revision No. 34 of 2008 (Rani Devi and others Vs. Siya Ram and others), dismissed by order dated 21.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 1.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that under any circumstances if the court came to the conclusion that the revision filed by the petitioner is beyond the statutory period of limitation as provided under Provincial of Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, the same should be dismissed on the ground of delay and cannot be decided on merit. However, in the present case the respondent No. 1 had dismissed the revision on merit as well as on delay, so the said action on the part of respondent No. 1 is void ab initio and without justification. He further submits that from the material on record, it clearly established that there is no delay in filing the revision in the matter in question, still the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Sri S.K. Dixit, learned counsel for respondent at the very outset submits that as no delay in filing the revision and rather the same i s within time. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. From the perusal of the judgment dated 21.12.2013 passed in Revision No. 34 of 2008 (Rani Devi and others Vs. Siya Ram and others), the finding given by the revisional court while desmissing the same is as under:-
(3.) Further from the perusal of the record, it also transpires that the said finding given by the revisional court that the revision is time barred, contrary to the material on record. As it is clearly established from the material on record that the same is within the statutory period, if the period of obtaining the certified copy is counted. Even otherwise, it is settled proposition of law that when substantial justice and technical justice are pitted against each other, way should be given to substantial justice and the matter should not be dismissed on the ground of delay, shall be decided on merit. AS held by Hon'ble the Apex court in the case of Prem Prakash Tiwari Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2001 1 LLJ 1592.;