Jagdish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's counsel.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition directed against the order of the trial Court as well as of the revisional Court whereby the application of landlord respondent for recalling the order of the trial Court closing the plaintiff's evidence was rejected. A perusal of the judgment of the revisional Court indicates that the date on which the impugned order on the application of the plaintiff for producing his evidence was passed the case was also fixed for consideration of the plaintiff's application for striking off the defence of the defendant and it was urged before the trial Court that the plaintiff in that impression had not brought his evidence, yet the trial Court wrongly proceeded under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. instead of Order 17 Rule 2 C.P.C. It is well established law that mere mention of a wrong provision of law does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court if the facts do otherwise warrant. The revisional Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the trial Court wrongly proceeded under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. and the trial Court itself corrected its mistake by allowing the plaintiff's application for permitting him to adduce evidence. No interference is required. The writ petition is dismissed summarily with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned within three days.;