Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19200 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12766 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ganesh Prasad Yadav Respondent :- Addl. District Judge 13 Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Yadav,Ajeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Seva Kant,Alok Kumar,Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-land lord against the order dated 05.12.2024 passed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (herein after referred to as the 'Act'), whereby the revision has been allowed. 4. The facts, as emerge from the documents, are that a S.C.C. Suit No.132 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent seeking a decree of eviction and arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 20.04.2015. The respondent-tenant moved an application for recall of the said order under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. However, the said application came to be dismissed by means of an order dated 18.09.2018. Challenging the said order dated 18.09.2018, an S.C.C. revision was preferred being Revision No.50 of 2019. In the said revision, an amendment application was moved on 20.03.2024 and through the amendment application, the order dated 20.04.2015, which was an ex parte decree, was also challenged. The revisional court heard the parties and allowed the same vide order dated 05.12.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that he had specifically argued that the revision against the order dated 20.04.2015 was highly barred by limitation and no delay condonation application has been filed. He further argues that on the same ground, the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. has been rejected and thus it was not open to the tenant to have filed a revision that too after about 9 years of the passing of the ex parte decree. The revisional court, without considering the said submission, has proceeded to allow the revision by holding that the notice was not properly served. It was also noticed while passing the order that when the suit was filed, the revisionist before the lower court was at Rajasthan and the summons were received by his family and ultimately, the revision came to be allowed, whereby the ex parte decree dated 20.04.2015 as well as the order dated 18.09.2018 were quashed and the matter was remanded for adjudication afresh. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents argues that it is only an order of remand and admittedly as per the revisional order, no opportunity of hearing was granted, as such, it requires no interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the order impugned cannot be sustained for the following reasons: (i) In terms of the prescriptions contained under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for moving an application for recall of an ex parte decree, it is incumbent that at the time of presentation of an application, the deposit of the amount due from him under the decree has to be deposited. No such deposit appears to have been made, as such, the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. read with Section 17 of the Act itself was not maintainable. (ii) The other error in the writ large on the judgement is that through the amendment application filed after 9 years, the order dated 20.04.2015 was sought to be challenged. The said amendment was clearly mala fide and was filed after about 9 years of the suit being decreed ex parte without there being any delay condonation application. (iii) In terms of the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act, a revision can be filed only within a period of 30 days, in terms of the amended provisions as contained in State of Uttar Pradesh. The amended Section 25 is quoted herein-below:- "25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes.- The District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of an aggrieved party made within thirty days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit." "Provided that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes, the power of revision under this section shall vest in the High Court." 8. Clearly revision as against the order dated 20.04.2015 was highly belated and was not even accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as such, the same could not have been entertained. 9. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no amount of rent has been paid in terms of the decree passed till today. 10. Thus, for all the reasons as recorded above, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is quashed. The ex parte decree dated 20.04.2015 is affirmed. As the execution is still pending, the directions are issued for concluding the execution proceedings within a period of four months from today. 11. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench