RAVI S.DHAVAN, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition is against an order of the VII Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Civil Revision No. 199 of 1985, Smt. Beila Devi v. Smt. Bhagwani. The matter arises out of the jurisdiction of Judge Small Causes in pursuance of Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 when the landlords (petitioners) filed a suit against the tenant (respondent No. 2); the cause of action was arrears of rent and consequential default. The Judge Small Causes had decreed the suit and against this the tenant (respondent No. 2) had filed the aforesaid revision. This revision was dismissed in default on 15th January, 1987 and the interim order staying the execution which has so far been continuing, has also been vacated on that day. The order dismissing the revision in default, was recalled by the VII Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, and rightly, this discretion which had been exercised was in accordance with law and in accord with a decision of this Court in Smt. K.L. Sehgal v. The Commissioner, Allahabad and others, A.I.R. 1971 All 573.
(2.) THE order of 19th March, 1987, of the learned District Judge aforesaid restoring the revision to its original number and in effect directing that it will be heard on merit, has been assailed in the present writ petition. There is no error in the present decision and it does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In pursuance of the order by which the revision has been dismissed for default, it was submitted at the bar before this Court that the landlords had taken possession of the premises. The Court had enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner of the manner in which the possession had been wrested from the tenant. Before this Court was placed a report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 4th March, 1987, which records that the possession of the premises in question was taken on Ist March, 1987 in the afternoon. This is very unfortunate as Ist March, 1987 happened to be a Sunday and decrees normally are not executed after sun set and sun rise and on Sundays. The principle behind this is that parties must have an occasion at least to raise an objection before the executing Court if the decree is being objected to and is otherwise than in accordance with law. The report of the learned Advocate Commissioner which has been placed before this Court reveals that in the afternoon the Advocate Commissioner was awaiting the arrival of the police squad to enforce the eviction order. There were ladies in the premises and upon the arrival of the police the tenants were asked to march out and these were the circumstances in which possession was taken.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners pleaded that while the revision may be considered by the learned District Judge on merits and at a very earl;y date, no order ought to be passed against the landlord requiring him to deliver possession to the tenant and to this extent the District Judge may be restrained.;