JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - This revision has been preferred by M/s, Ashok Chemicals through its parter Sri Anoop Kumar Kulshrestha against the order dated 9-2-1987 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (for short the Act). 2. The case of the applicant is that the Court below wide its order dated 12-1-87 did not grant him an adjournment so that a written statement could be filed within a month. It appears that after the rejection of the defendant applicant's application the statement of the plaintiff was recorded and 9-2-87 was fixed for the evidence of the defendants. The applicant, thus, contends that it is a fit case for interference. 3. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and at their request this revision is being finally disposed of. 4. The instant suit was filed as early as 3-12-84. The applicant was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. Admittedly, defendant No 1 is the tenant of the disputed premises of which the plaintiffs are the landlord. The defendant No. 2 (applicant) is alleged to be a sub-tenant. The defendant-applicant put in appearance on 23-1-85. For all this period the defendant-applicant was seeking only the adjournment of the suit. In spite of the adjournments the defendant failed to file any written statement nor any request was made to file it. The conduct of the applicant in not filing the written statement in spite of adjournments has rightly been held to be negligent by the court below. 5. However, on 9-2-87 the applicant filed two applications, one for the admission of the written statement on record and admission of the written-statement on record and the other for filing certain documents. Both these applications have been rejected by the impugned order dated 9-2-87, thus, giving rise to this revision. 6. Apparently this is not a fit case for interference under Section 25 of the Act. As already stated above the Court below has recorded a finding that the applicant was highly negligent in not filing the written-statement in spite of opportunities being granted. For two years the suit could not proceed manifestly on account of the delaying and dilatory tacties adopted by the applicant. As already stated above the Court below has recorded a finding that the applicant was highly negligent in not filing the written-statement in spite of opportunities being granted. For two years the suit could not proceed manifestly on account of the delaying and dilatory tacties adopted by the applicant. However, of the such conduct of a party howsoever unconscionable rather unpardonable may be prompt indulgence being shown as a special case to avoid any miscarriage of justice being done though I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-landlords that the applicant is guilty of dilatory tacties and does not deserve protection under the law. However, without laying down any law on the point and with a view to secure justice in the case, I feel that an opportunity be given to the applicant to establish his defence. The plaintiffs can certainly be compensated with costs. I therefore, direct that the written-statement of the applicant which is already on record be admitted on payment of Rs. 250.00 (Rs. Two hundred-fifty) as costs to the plaintiffs and the papers filed by the applicant as per list 70/C be also brought on record on payment of Rs. 250 as costs to the plaintiff both the amount of costs should be paid by the applicant within 8 days from today i.e., by 17-7-87. A copy of this order shall be made available to the landlord Counsel for the parties within 48 hours. Such copy shall be produced by the parties before the Court below on 17-7-87. The learned counsel for the applicant under takes that no adjournment will be sought by the applicant in the suit and he would participate and assist speedy disposal of the suit. 7. The court below shall proceeded with the case fixing 22-7-1987 and shall proceed day by day till the suit is finally disposed of which shall be latest by 31-7-87. 8. With these observations the revision is disposed of accordingly. However, it is made clear that in the even to default by the applicant of any of the conditions of this order laid down above, the revision will stand automatically dismissed and the suit will proceed in the absence of the applicant according to law.