JUDGMENT

Virendra Kumar, J. - Defendant-revisionist Raj Kumar Singh (tenant) has revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the order dated 2-3-1990 of the Addl District Judge, Agra dismissing the application of the revisionist under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. read with Section 17 of the Act.

2. Parties have exchanged affidavits.

3. The plaintiff-respondent Shakuntala Devi (the landlady) filed a suit No. 20 of 1989 on 28/30-3-89 for arrears of rent and ejectment of the revisionist-tenant in respect of a quarter situated at Kamla Nagar Agra in the suit 19-4-89 was fixed for filing written statement by the revisionist-tenant and 26-4-89 was fixed for hearing. On 19-4-89 the Court ordered for ex-parte proceedings as the defendant-revisionist did not file the written statement nor he appeared. The order of ex-parte proceedings was set aside on the application of the revisionist. He moved an application for filing written statement. The case was adjourned to 29-5-89. On that date the written statement was to be hied by the defendant-revisionist but it was not done. On the other hand an application for adjournment was moved by him on the same date on the ground of illness of his counsel. The application was rejected and the Court ordered the proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. The Court passed a decree for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the defendant-tenant on 29-5-89. It is annexed as Annexure-2 to the revision petition.

4. On 30-5-89 the defendant-revisionist moved an application under Order XLI Rule 5 C. P. C. before the same court for staying the execution and to allow him to bring stay order from the High Court on its reopening in July 1989.

5. On 31-5-89 the defendant-revisionist moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. (Annexure-5) for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 29-5-89 along with an application for stay of execution before the with Add], District Judge, Agra who had passed the decree. The court ordered the office to give report on the same day. Thereafter the file was put up before the Presiding Officer on 13-7-89 on which date the court issued a warning to the concerned official for not putting up the file on 31-5-89 before him despite the orders. On 13.7.89 the court ordered to register the application and issue notice to the opposite party for filing objection. In the meantime the plaintiff-opposite party (landlady) moved an application on 3-7-89 for execution of the ex-parte decree. In the execution proceedings, the application which was moved by the defendant-revisionist on 30-5-89 under Order XLI Rule 5 C. P. C. for execution proceedings, was taken up and considered by the execution court. That application was rejected on 10-7-89. On 11-7-89 the defendant-revisionist pressed before the execution court that he had already moved an application for setting aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. on 31-5-89 and the said application is not traceable, despite the fact that entry of the application is available in the Syaka Register of the court. On the same date the court on the ground that such application had been moved though it was not traceable in the office, passed the order that the execution proceedings shall remain stayed in case the defendant-tenant deposited the decretal amount in court in seven days positively, failing which the execution was to proceed on The defendant-tenant deposited Rs. 13,000/- on the execution side as decreetal amount after obtaining a tender duly signed by the court for making the deposit. In the execution application which filed on 3-7-89, the amount claimed under the decree was a total sum of Rs. 12,760,05 p.

6. As already mentioned, the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. on being traced out in the office was placed before the court on 18-7-89. The court ordered that the decreetal amount having been deposited by the Judgement-debtor, the exe