- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. This petition arises out of judgment and order dated 30th Novem ber, 1981 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Peti tion) passed by Respondent No. 1 (II Addi tional District Judge, Bareilly) whereby the said Court allowed Revision No. 264 of 1979 (Qamar Uddin v. Shaft Ahmad and others) under Section 25, Provincial Cause Courts Act (for short called the 'act' ). The said revision arose from judgment and order dated 21st August, 1979 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly, whereby said Court dismissed J. S. C. C. Suit No. 459 of 1969 (Qamar Uddin v. Shaft Ahmad and others ).
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has decreed the suit by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 30th November, 1984 (An nexure-4) and hence, feeling aggrieved Defendant-tenant has filed this petition. List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is present. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, holding brief of Sri R. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate on behalf of plaintiff-respondent No. 3 and he states that he has no instructions and that his client has not responded in spite of letter being sent in the year 1987. Sri R. P. Srivastava also appears for the said respondent No. 3, but he is not present.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Revisional Court in exer cise of its' powers under Section 25 of the Act was not justified in decreeing the suit on its own, particularly when it was upset ting the findings of fact recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court. Have gone through the judgments of the two Courts below and on perusal it is apparent that the Revisional Court (respondent No. 1) has given reasons for the conclusions arrived at and for setting aside the findings recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court. Revisional Court in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act could upset findings of fact and record its own finding. In the instant case no findings have been recorded by the Revisional Court on its own.;