V.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) Sri Amrendra Pratap Saxena, the Petitioner, is a practising lawyer at Agra. He is a tenant of premises bearing municipal No. 2/30 in Swadeshi Bima Nagar, Agra. Sri Sukhnandan Gupta is the owner landlord of this accommodation.
(2.) On August 24, 1971, Sukhnandan Gupta filed Suit No. 652 of 1971 in the Court of Munsif, Agra against Saxena. He claimed recovery of certain amount by way of arrears of rent and also? sought ejectment of Saxena. On January 6, 1973 this suit was transferred for trial to the Court of the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra in view of the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act No. 37 of 1972. On April 19, 1973 Saxena made an application (19 C) seeking a month's time for depositing the necessary amounts and for filing written statement. This application was directed to be taken up for orders the next day. April 20, 1973 was a Sunday so that the application was not taken up on that day. On April 21. 1973 written statement was filed by Saxena in which he gave his own version of the case and pleaded that nothing was due from him to the Plaintiff. As such, he was not depositing any amount. Instead, he claimed that he had made some excess payment to the Plaintiff which deserved to be adjusted. Also, that there was no agreed rent between the parties. After a few postponements, on September 28, 1973 the case is said to have been left undated for a period of two months. On November 17, 1973, on an application made by the Plaintiff for fixing a date, January 24, 1974 was fixed for hearing. According to the case of Saxena, this date was fixed for disposal of the application made by the Plaintiff for expeditious hearing of the suit. However, on January 24, 1974 the detente of Saxena was struck off under Rule 5 of Order 15 Code of Civil Procedure and the suit itself was decreed ex -parte against him. On February 5, 1974, he made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure and on February 7, 1974, that is, two days later, fresh security for the amount for which a decree had been passed against him was filed by Saxena.
(3.) On April 13, 1974, the application which he had made Under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. A revision against this Order Under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act preferred by Saxena was also dismissed on April 19, 1976. In fact, there were two revisions, one against the ex -parte decree and the other against the order refusing to set aside the ex -parte decree. Against both these orders two revisions Under Sec. 115 Code of Civil Procedure were filed by Saxena in this Court. They were numbered as Civil Revision Nos. 921 and 930 of 1976. These revisions came up for hearing before K.C. Agrawal, J. who dismissed them on January 23, 1979. The judgment was common to both the cases. Saxena filed two applications for review of this judgment. One review application was filed on February 22, 1979. It was rejected by the learned Judge by order dated December 17, 1979, without issue of notice to the other side, on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying recall of the order dated January 23, 1979. The other review application was filed on March 26. 1979. It was accompanied by an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. This application came up before the learned Judge on March 5, 1981. It was dismissed on two grounds, first, that the revision itself was not competent, against an order of the Additional District Judge made Under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, in this Court Under Sec. 115 Code of Civil Procedure and. Second that the delay in filing of the revision application had not been satisfactorily explained. Thereafter, on March 17, 1981, the present: writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by Saxena in this Court assailing the orders passed Under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the Additional District Judge.;