ORDER This civil revision application under Section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1982 is directed against the order of eviction dated 23.4.96 passed against the petitioners. The relevant facts are as follows. 2. The suit was filed for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal necessity. Petitioner no. 1 appeared in the suit on 26.3.96 while petitioner no. 2 entered appearance on 18.4.96. They filed application seeking leave to contest as required under Section 14(4) of the BBC Act on 22.4.96 which was the next date fixed in the suit. From the order-sheet it appears that the said application was filed at 11.45 A.M. Interestingly enough, the court had already examined the plaintiffs as a witness and fixed the case for judgment on the next day, i.e. 23.4.96. On 23.4.96 he passed the impugned order. He did not think it worthwhile to consider the application seeking leave to contest on merit on the ground that the same had been filed at a late stage. 3. This Court had held in series of cases that the defendant is not required to file application seeking leave to contest on the date of appearance itself, in appropriate cases it can be done on the adjourned date as well. In the present case, as stated above, the petitioners had filed the application on the very first adjourned date. 4. I am unable to understand the reasoning of the court below that the 'leave application' had been filed after the close of the working hours of the court, As noticed above, the application had been filed at 11.45 A.M., The Civil Court had no doubt different sitting schedule during summer, but certainly the filing time, i.e., 11.45 A.M. comes well within the working hours of the court, in my opinion, the court having noticed that the petitioners had filed 'leave' application it should have considered the merit of the leave application first and then proceeded with the suit. The procedure adopted by the court, in my opinion, is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act. The haste with which the court (Mr. Md. Shamim, Sub Judge Godda) acted gives an uneasy feeling about his bonafide. The manner in which he conducted himself in disposing of the suit may require examination on the administrative side. The procedure adopted by the court, in my opinion, is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act. The haste with which the court (Mr. Md. Shamim, Sub Judge Godda) acted gives an uneasy feeling about his bonafide. The manner in which he conducted himself in disposing of the suit may require examination on the administrative side. So far as the civil revision is concerned, in the facts of the case and for reasons stated above, I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned order is wholly illegal and fit to be set aside. 5. The order dated 23.4.96 passed in Title eviction suit No. 3/95 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below. The court below shall first dispose of the 'leave' application' on merit and then proceed in accordance with law. If Sri Md. Shamim still remains at the station (Godda), this particular case shall be assigned to any other officer having jurisdiction to try the same.