JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge, Churu dated September 8, 1988 by which he has rejected the application of the plaintiff-non-petitioner moved under Order 3 Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code for taking certain documents on record. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the revision petition is hopelessly time barred. He contended that the impugned order was passed on September 8, 1988, application for obtaining its certified copy was moved on December 8, 1988, it was ready on January 4, 1989 and it was taken by the petitioners on March 18, 1989. He con tended that this application for obtaining copy was practically moved after expiry of the period of limitation. 3. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order was passed during the period of employees' strike, a notice was affixed on the notice board of the court on September 8, 1988 that the cases fixed up for that day would be taken up on December 8, 1988, when one of the petitioners went to the court on that date, he learnt that the said application had already been D/d. September 8, 1988 and, accordingly, an application for obtaining its certified copy was moved the same day. He further contended that the office gave him December 9, 1989 for the delivery of the copy, it was not ready, the petitioners were given copy on March 4, 1989 and as such the revision petition is within limitation. An affidavit of the petitioner No. 3, Sumermal has been filed in support of the application moved tinder section 5, Limitation Act. He lastly contended that this affidavit has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. 4. It is not in dispute that there was employees' strike on September 8, 1988, the application for obtaining a certified copy was moved on December 8, 1988, 9th December was fixed for its delivery, it was ready on January 4, 1989, and it was delivered to the petitioners on March 18, 1989. These facts have also been stated in the affidavit. Admittedly, no counter affidavit has been filed. The affidavit of the petitioner No. 3 Sumermal has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. These facts have to be admitted. These facts have also been stated in the affidavit. Admittedly, no counter affidavit has been filed. The affidavit of the petitioner No. 3 Sumermal has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. These facts have to be admitted. The reasons for the delay put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted and it is held that the revision petition is within limitation.In respect of the merits, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is clear from the order-sheet of September 8, 1988 that the impugned order was passed without the file being before the Presiding Officer. 5. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the non petitioner that all necessary details and facts have been given in the impugned order and as such it cannot be said that the order is vitiated by the absence of record before the Presiding Officer when it was passed. 6. It is not in dispute that the employees of the court were on strike on September 8, 1988 and the file of the case was not before the learned District Judge, Chum when the order under revision was given by him. The application in respect of which this order has been passed was moved on May 12, 1988. It is the material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. The revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. According to the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, this is the fourth revision petition filed by the petitioner and the case is pending since September 4, 1987 for final arguments. The case needs expeditious disposal. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated September 8, 1988 of the learned District Judge, Churn is set aside. The learned District Judge will hear the parties on the defendants' application dated May 12, 1988 and decide it afresh within two weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of order. The suit will be decided within three months. The parties will appear before the District Judge, Churn on 1st September, 1989.Revision Petition Allowed. *******