Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.—Heard Sri A.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

3. By means of the present revision the revisionist, who is the tenant of shop No. 2, Rameshwar Bhawan Jamuna Bridge, Station Road Agra (Property No. 9/97-B), has challenged the order dated 2.2.1993 passed by Additional District Judge-12th, Agra in S.C.C. Suit No. 22 of 1986 (Sri Rameshwar Agrawal v. Akshay Ram Sharma).

4. An interim order has been passed by this Court on 12.3.1993 by which this Court has stayed the execution of the decree dated 2.2.1993 passed by the 12th Additional District Judge, Agra.

5. Sri B.P. Agrawal, learned counsel has put appearance on behalf of the opposite party, the owner of the property in question. Sri B.P. Agrawal, Advocate has died and this fact has been brought to the notice of this Court and therefore this Court has directed the counsel for the revisionist to take the steps and in pursuance thereof the counsel for the revisionist has taken the steps and notices are issued through registered post.

6. A Delay Condonation Application No. 287274 of 2009 alongwith Abatement Application and Substitution Application has been filed on which vide order dated 23.10.2010 the notices had been issued to the respondent No. 1/1 by registered post AD. The office report indicates that neither undelivered cover nor dak has been returned back after service of notice as per record. This Court vide order dated 26.10.2010 has been pleased to order to await return of notice by fixing the date on 22nd November 2010. Again vide order dated 29.11.2010 this Court directed to the counsel for the revisionist to serve the Dasti upon the opposite party and to take the steps accordingly within a week. Counsel for the revisionist in compliance of the said order has taken the steps and accordingly, the Dasti notices were sent.

7. The office report dated 24.2.1011 indicates that the notice had been issued to respondent No. 1/1 which are returned undelivered cover with report of ‘without address’. It further refer that the Dasti notices were handed over by the clerk of the revisionist’s to the counsel for the respondent No. 1/1 and affidavit of service has been filed.

8. Order dated 25.2.2011 indicates that this Court has noticed that the affidavit of service has been filed by the counsel for the revisionist, however, he has been permitted to make service of notice by publication in newspapers and for the said publication one month’s time has been allowed. Complying the said order dated 25.2.2011 the Dasti notice was handed over to the clerk of the revisionist’s counsel for publication in the daily newspaper “Amar Ujala” fixing 28.3.2011 for appearance of respondent No. 1/1.

9. An affidavit of service has been filed by the counsel for the revisionist. This Court has again passed an order on 4.7.2012 which is quoted herein below :

“List revised. Sri A.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant is present. No one is present on behalf of respondents.

By order dated 25.2.2011, the revisionist was permitted to serve respondents by publication in a newspaper having wide circulation in Agra. Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit of service has been filed annexing therewith a copy of the publication of the notice, published in Amar Ujala (Agra).

In view of the above said fact, service is deemed sufficient on the respondents.

Office to assign a number to the Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application of 2009 which is at page 20 of the application dated 30.10.2009 and to list the case in the next cause list.”

10. In view of the aforesaid, the service upon the opposite party has been found deemed sufficient service on the respondent.

11. This case is listed today and the counsel for the revisionist Sri A.K. Goyal is present. However, neither any appearance slip has been filed nor anyone is present on behalf of the opposite parties.

12. Since th