Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) By means of instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.5.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Gorakhpur in Civil Misc. Case No.1802 of 2015. Thereby, the application filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay in filing revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (the Act) was rejected and as a result whereof, the revision was also dismissed.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows:
(3.) Respondent first set (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlords') instituted SCC Suit No.37 of 2008 against the father of the petitioners for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction. It was alleged that the rent of the premises was Rs.72.81 and he defaulted in payment of rent, consequently, a notice terminating his tenancy was given to him on 6.6.2008. Since he did not vacate, therefore, the landlords were compelled to institute the suit. On 14.12.2012, during pendency of the suit, father of the petitioners passed away and after his death, the petitioners and respondent 2nd set were substituted in his place. The trial court, by order dated 11.7.2013, proceeded exparte against the petitioners and ultimately, decreed the suit exparte on 14.11.2013. The petitioners filed a restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 12.12.2013 through Sri Surendra Kumar Rasbindu Advocate, which was registered as Misc. Case No.47 of 2013. During pendency of the said restoration application, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs.3876/- on basis of permission granted by the court by order dated 14.3.2014 in purported compliance of Section 17 of the Act. It was followed by filing of restoration application on 14.3.2014 by respondent 2nd set. According to respondent 2nd set, he was not aware of the filing of the earlier restoration application by the petitioners, which ultimately was dismissed in default on 13.2.2015. The restoration application, registered as Misc. Case No.14 of 2014, filed by respondent 2nd set was dismissed by an order dated 10.9.2015. Thereafter, respondent 2nd set filed a recall application seeking recall of order dated 10.9.2015 on the ground that it was an exparte order. The said application also came to be dismissed by order dated 6.10.2015. It was challenged by respondent 2nd set by filing a revision. The petitioners claim that while the above revision was pending in the court of District Judge, they were advised by Sri M.L. Gupta Advocate that they also have remedy of challenging the exparte decree on merits by filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners availed the said remedy by filing a revision on 21.10.2015 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay. The delay condonation application was opposed by the landlords. By impugned order dated 7.5.2016, the application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected and as a consequence whereof, the revision has also been dismissed and hence, the instant petition.;