Devinder Gupta, J.—The defendant-petitioner has in this Civil Revision challenged the order passed on 30th September, 1992 by Mr. Inderjit Kaushik, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh. The Civil Revision was instituted in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, but it stood transferred to this Court by virtue of an order passed by the Supreme Court on 1st February, 1993 in Transfer Petition (C) No. 623 and 624 of 1992 (Dr. Om Prakash Rawal v- Mr. Justice Amrit Lal Bahrl).

2. In order to appreciate the grievances of the petitioner, as made out in this revision petition and to dispose of this Civil Revision, it will be necessary to give a few facts.

3. On 5th June, 1992, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Chandigarh against the defendant-petitioner, seeking a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of House No 124, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh and for recovery of Rs. 1,000 as damages for use and occupation of the property at the rate of Rs. 250 per day w. e. f. 1-6-1992 to 4-6-1992 as also a decree for future damages for use and occupation from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of the possession.

4. The suit is founded on the allegations that one Bal Krishan Rawal purchased plot No. 19 in Street B, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh, measuring 505.5 Sq. yards in auction held on 16th October, 1960. Conveyance deed was executed in his favour by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh on 30th July, 1964. The property now is known as House No. 124, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh, which has been constructed by Mr Bal Krishan Rawal, who was the owner of the said house. The plaintiff purchased the said building alongwith all its fixtures through registered deed of sale dated 6th February, 1992 from Bal Krishan Rawal, whose parents have also been residing therein. The defendant was also residing with his parents alongwith other members of his family. The defendant was merely a licensee under Bal Krishan Rawal and now after purchase of the property, he became licensee under the plaintiff, whose license was revoked by serving notice dated 13th May, 1992 and since the defendant failed to deliver possession he is liable to be commanded by decree of mandatory Injunction to deliver possession to the plaintiff and also to pay damages for use and occupation,

5. The suit was assigned to Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh, who on the same day, after obtaining the office report, ordered it to be registered and directed dasti summonses to be issued to the defendant for 15th June, 1992 The record reveals that the summoases issued to the defendant were not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), namely, Rule 1 of Order V, but it was only an intimation of the date of hearing On 15th June, 1992, the petitioner put in appearance through counsel. The case was adjourned to 16th July, 1992 for filing written statement. On the adjourned date, an application was made by the defendant seeking production of documents copy of which was supplied to the plaintiffs Counsel and the case was posted for filing reply and for consideration for 4th August, 1992. After this order was passed, on the same day, photostat copy of the sale-deed in plaintiffs favour was made available to the defendant. The case could not be taken up on 4th August, 1992 due to strike and it was adjourned to 26th August, 1992.

6. Before the next date, on 25th August, 1992, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was moved by the defendant praying for rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action, suit as framed is barred by law, suit for mandatory injunction is not legally maintainable, plaint is not \n accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code and it being virtually a suit for possession, the plaintiff had under-valued the suit. On 26th August, 1992, copy of this application