RADHEY LAL Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by an order passed by the Regional Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner tenant seeking setting aside of an order dismissing in default a revision filed by him under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and restoration of the revision to Its original number for deciding it on merits, he has approached this court for redress.

(2.) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are that a suit being suit no. 60 of 1979 was filed by the landlord respondent against the petitioner claiming a decree for his ejectment from tire premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. In this suit the trial court granted the relief for the. ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute and the claim of the plaintiff for of recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation was granted only in part. Aggrieved by this decree the tenant petitioner filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was registered as S.C.C.R. No. 19 of 1988. This revision was dismissed In default of revisionist onl3-7-1992. THEreafter on 21-9-1992, the tenant petitioner filed an application purporting to be under Order IX Rule 9 and section 141/151 of the Civil Procedure Code duly supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds whereunder he stood prevented from appearing when the revision had been called for hearing. THE petitioner tenant prayed in the aforesaid application that the order dismissing the revision in default passed on 13-7-1992 be recalled and restoring the revision to its original number the same be decided on merits. THE revisionsal Court however, by the impugned order dated 27-7-1992 rejected the aforesaid application by a cryptic order saying that the application was not maintainable.

(3.) THE provisions contained in Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provide that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, save in so. far as is otherwise provided by that Code or by the said Act, be the procedure followed in a court of small causes in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of such suits. Order 'L' Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the provisions specified in that order shall not extend to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1987. However, the provisions specified therein do not include the provisions contained in either under Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure or the provisions contained in Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure or section 141 or section 151 thereof. Since the provisions contained in section 17 of the Act are enabling provisions for procedural application, obviously therefore, the aforesaid provisions stand clearly attracted to the proceedings of a revision contemplated under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act wherein the revisional court for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a court of small causes was according to law may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as It thinks fit, while it is true that the provisions relating to procedure governing a revisions contemplated under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act have not been specified it has to be borne in mind that considering the nature of the proceedings envisaged under section 25 of the Act, once a revision Is entertained the suit will be deemed to be pending in the shape of the revision and just as an appeal is a continuation of a suit similarly a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is also to be treated as a continuation of the suit It should not be overlooked that where statutes are silent and remedy has to be sought by recourse to basic principles, it is the duty of the court to devise procedural rule by analogy and expediency.