Short Note : 1. The non-applicants filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner. The case was fixed for evidence on 13-11-75, when on that date the petitioner-s counsel submitted an application for adjournment on the ground that the defendant-petitioner was not present and his witnesses were also not present. The application was rejected and the learned Judge passed orders to proceed ex parte. But instead of passing a judgment and decree there and then the learned Judge adjourned the case for hearing of arguments. On 14-11-75 the defendant-petitioners submitted an application praying that the defendant-petitioner be permitted to take part in the proceedings and lead his evidence. This application was rejected by the Court below by its impugned order and it is against this that the present revision petition has been filed. 2. Held: It is, no doubt, true that on 13-11-75 when the evidence of the defendant-petitioner was closed, processes have not been issued. This Court in view of the language of O.16, R.1 CPC before amendment, has consistently taken the view that when process is paid but it paid late still the Court should issue summons. Although this is the discretion of the Court not to adjourn the case. It appears that because of this language of O.16, R.1 CPC that by amendment now it has been so provided that if process is not paid within the requisite time it is not necessary to issue process. But as both learned counsel for the parties stated that on 13-11-75 it was the Civil Procedure Code before its amendment was in force and the Court below could not refuse to issue process when the process was filed although admittedly it was not filed within the time provided by the Court below. It is also clear that no revision petition was filed against the order dated 13-11-75. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12-1-76 and so far as this order is concerned apparently no material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction could be urged. As the Court has proceeded to dispose of the case under O.17, R.3 CPC and the evidence having been closed, there was nothing left and the application therefore, could not have been entertained as filed by the defendant-petitioner. 3. As the Court has proceeded to dispose of the case under O.17, R.3 CPC and the evidence having been closed, there was nothing left and the application therefore, could not have been entertained as filed by the defendant-petitioner. 3. It is also clear that against the order dated 13-11-75 no revision was filed and in the circumstances of this case I do not think it fit to revise the order dated 13-11-75. The summons may not have been issued but it could not be disputed that the Court had the discretion to refuse the adjournment as sought by the defendant-petitioner and the Court below on 13-11-75 refused to grant the adjournment. Revision dismissed.