Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard Sri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist.

2. The delay of 8 days in filing the revision has been explained sufficiently.

3. Accordingly, delay is condoned.

4. Delay Condonation Application No.401445 of 2014 is allowed.

5. Office to allot regular number to the revision.

6. The defendant revisionist has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the court below dated 01.09.2014 passed in SCC Suit No.214 of 2012, Vijay Rani Tandon Vs. Sri Kant Trivedi.

7. The court below by the said order has rejected the application of the defendant revisionist under Section 23 of the Act.

8. The submission of learned counsel for the defendant revisionist is that a dispute of title over the property is involved in the suit and therefore, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction over it but to return the plaint.

9. There is no dispute that the previous owner Bariyam Singh has transferred the shop in dispute in favour of the plaintiff respondent vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.1978. The plaintiff respondent has let out the same to the defendant revisi