JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - This is a tenant's revision against the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The summons were sent by registered post and there is an endorsement of the postman that the summons were refused. The tenant appeared for the first time on 6-11-1986. He made an application that he had just come to know of the institutions of the case and prayed for time to file his written statement. He also prayed for being supplied with a copy of the plaint. The court made the following order on the application. "The application was objected to by the counsel for the other side. Allowed. Hearing of the case is adjourned to 21-11-1986 for further hearing." 4. On 21-11-1986, no written statement was filed and an application was made on behalf of the respondent by the Counsel praying that the case be adjourned as he had been engaged on the date. In this application it was complained that the copy of the plaint had not been given. On this application there is an endorsement of the Counsel for the plaintiff-landlord, which runs as follows : - "No objection on personal ground. But giving a copy has already been refused by the Court." 5. The case was adjourned till 7th January, 1987. On 7th January, 1987, the tenant put in an application re-iterating his request for the supply of the copy of the plaint which had already been refused. It has further stated in the application that the tenant wishes to either get a stay order from the High Court or get an order of transfer from the High Court and it was prayed that the case be adjourned for one month. No written-statement was filed. This application was rejected. The Court also observed that he had already rejected the application for adjournment earlier on the ground of non-supply of the copy of the plaint. Thereafter, the order sheet shows that the plaintiff was examined and the plaintiff's evidence was closed. The order sheet also discloses that the defendant's counsel was absent although the defendant was present in court and he did not cross-examine the plaintiff. Thereafter, the order sheet shows that the plaintiff was examined and the plaintiff's evidence was closed. The order sheet also discloses that the defendant's counsel was absent although the defendant was present in court and he did not cross-examine the plaintiff. The case was listed an 8-1-1987 for the delivery of judgment and the judgment was delivered on 8-1-1987. 6. The basic grievance of the applicant is that he was not supplied with a copy of the plaint and as such he was unable to file a written-statement and further that the court on 6-11-1986 had directed the plaintiff to supply a copy of the plaint but the plaintiff did not do so and despite repeated request the same was not furnished. 7. As mentioned earlier, summons had been sent to the applicant and were refused. Under Order V, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, every summon has to be accompanied by a copy of the plaint Official acts are deemed to have been done regularly. It must be held accordingly that when the defendant refused to accept the summons, he also refused to accept service of the plaint. He can, therefore, make no legitimate grievance of the fact that he was not supplied with a copy of the plaint. The Court also was asked by the applicant to order the plaintiff to supply a copy of the plaint. The Court made on specific directions in this regard. The prayer to supply the copy of the plaint must, therefore, to be deemed to have been refused. The order dated 6-11-1986 merely said, Allowed, and fixed another dated for filing the written-statement. Learned Counsel for the applicant urges that when the court allowed the application it meant that it allowed both the requests made in the application of the applicant which were the effect that he be supplied a copy of the plaint and on adjourned date be fixed in the case for filing of the written-statement. The order read as a whole merely means, as has been interpreted by the court below, that the case be adjourned to enable the defendant to file the written-statement. It cannot be interpreted as meaning that the applicant's prayer for the grant of supply of the copy of the plaint was also granted by the Court below. The order read as a whole merely means, as has been interpreted by the court below, that the case be adjourned to enable the defendant to file the written-statement. It cannot be interpreted as meaning that the applicant's prayer for the grant of supply of the copy of the plaint was also granted by the Court below. The subsequent order of the court below shows that what the court meant was that it adjourned the case for giving an opportunity to the defendant for filing his written-statement, but the defendant did not do so. 8. It is them urged that the applicant had submitted a tender for depositing a sum of Rs. 2,9000.0 but the court refused to permit the applicants to deposit the same and as such the applicant was denied the benefit of Section 20 sub-clauses (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 At that time of much bigger amount was due from the applicant as arrears of rent alone including the cost of the suit. The tender was also submitted in the court on an adjourned date and not at the first hearing. In the circumstances, the applicant cannot just claim that the action of the court below was contrary to Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 9. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this revision, which is dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 9-2-1986 is hereby vacated. However it is made clear that the decree shall be put into execution only after a period of one month from today's date.