Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment dated 5.10.2004 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned judgment the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with revision and stay application.

3. The dispute in the instant writ petition pertains to the ground floor portion of Bungalow No. 126. The Mall, Cantt.. Kanpur which is under the tenancy of the petitioner since 1911. The rent was paid to Mr. S.de Noronha. Km. C.de Noronha and Mr. S.de Noronha. The Post Master Noronha Exchange Post Office by the letter dated 27.7.1981 was informed that the landlords had transferred the aforesaid Bungalow No. 126 to Gopi Kishan Omar Vaish Dharmada Trust, Birhana Road, Kanpur and advised the petitioner to pay rent to Sri Gopi Kishan Gupta w.e.f. 1.8.1981 to whom the rent is said to be paid since then.

4. The subsequent purchaser of the property/landlords Sri Gopi Kishan Gupta and others filed S.C.C. Suit No. 883 of 1982 before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment which was decreed ex-parte in their favour vide judgment dated 6.2.1984 appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Thereafter the decree holders filed Execution Case No. 222 of 1984 for execution of the decree.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.2.1984 Writ Petition No. 11550 of 1984 was filed by the petitioner instead of civil revision. In the said Writ Petition No. 1550 of 1984 following interim order was passed :

“Issue noice.

The Post Office Noronha Exchange, The Mall, Kanpur and the petitioner shall not be evicted from the building in its occupation known as 126 Cantonment, Kanpur until further orders of this Court.

Sd/- K.P.S., J.

14.3.1984"

6. Subsequently on 29.9.1988 following further directions were given by the Court as under :

“The Standing Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one month’s time to deposit the arrears of rent and damages subject to the following conditions :

1. that the petitioner shall deposit the arrears of rent and damages due up to June, 1988 within a month from today.

2. that in addition to arrears of rent and damages the petitioner shall also deposit interest thereon at the rate of 10% within one month from today.

3. that the petitioner shall deposit rent/damages of the period commencing from 1st July 1988 to 31st December, 1988 in advance within a month from today; and

4. that further rent/damages shall be deposited by the petitioner in half yearly instalments, the first half yearly instalment becoming due up to 7th January, and second up to 7th July every year.

Sd/- O.P., J.

29.7.88"

7. The Writ Petition No. 11550 of 1984 was dismissed by this Court with costs at Rs. 5000/- vide judgment dated 30.4.2004 holding that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by filing a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act and the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of alternate remedy.

8. The petitioner thereafter preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 484/7 of 2004 under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act along with stay application and Section 5 application supported by an affidavit. However, the revisional court vide impugned order dated 5.10.2004 dismissed the delay condonation application on the ground that the reasons given for condonation of delay in filing the revision were not sufficient.

9. After filing the revision the petitioner also filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and also under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act to set aside the ex-parte decree and to recall the ex-parte order along with stay application as well as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

10. It appears that the petitioner brought on record certain documents sho