JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. By means of present petition judgments and orders dated 21st January 1983 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) and dated July 13, 1983 (Annexure-8) have been challenged. 2. PETITIONER prays that the said impugned orders passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. Heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Om Prakash. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. I have perused the impugned orders (Annexures 7 and 8), S. C. C. Suit No. 138 of 1980 was filed by one Mohammad Usuf and others against Abdul Samad (petitioner), in which Court of Judge Small Causes, Meerut passed an ex pane decree for arrears of rent and ejectment from House No. 471 situated in the city of Meerut, details of which have been mentioned in the plaint of the said suit (Annexure-1). Suit was decreed exparte vide judgment and order dated 6th January, 1981 (Annexure-4). 4. DEFENDANT filed an application for recalling of the said exparte judgment and decree. The said application was sup ported by an affidavit of the DEFENDANT dated 6th January 1981 (Annexure-5). The defendant alleged that summons were not served upon hint, but he came to know from plaintiff Mohammad Usuf and Riazuddin, who ERE occupants of adjoining Shop No. 500, informed defendant of the exparte decree on that very day. The defendant according to his affidavit made enquiries same day and filed an application for recalling of the ex pane decree dated 16th January, 1999. Rent was also deposited by hint in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 1990. The said recalling application (Annexure-6) was however, opposed by Mohammad Usuf (Respondent-3) and it is alleged that the explanation submitted in the said recall application was concocted and that the tenant had notice of the proceedings before the Judge, Small Causes Court. It was further alleged that the defendant intentionally avoided to receive summons when the process-server wanted to contact and the application was not in accordance with law. The defendant (sic) pleaded that DEFENDANT had knowledge and no case for recalling the order was made out. It was further alleged that the defendant intentionally avoided to receive summons when the process-server wanted to contact and the application was not in accordance with law. The defendant (sic) pleaded that DEFENDANT had knowledge and no case for recalling the order was made out. The Judge Small Causes Court rejected the application for recalling of the ex pane judgment and decree by ob serving that applicant had moved restoration application 'the same day' which shows that he had knowledge because a decree holder would not break the news of the exparte decree to the defendant tenant same day. 5. THE Judge Small Causes Court while making said observation failed to appreciate that application was, admittedly, filed the same; day. THE trial Court has recorded no finding whatsoever on the allegation of the Defendant that he was not served with the summons by the process server. THE order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court does not shows that it believed the allegation of the Plain tiff to the effect that the Defendant intentionally avoided the service as alleged in Paragraph 4 of the objection (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition). Further the Revisional Court (Respondent No. 1) dismissed the revision by observing that the rulings referred before it were with reference to the provisions of Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure and thus is relied upon a decision reported in ILR 1935 Alld. 379. 6. AT the out set I may mention that the decision reported in ILR 1935 Alld. 379, on the face of it is not applicable as in that case ex pane decree was recalled and the Court refused to interfere with the order passed ex pane. Here situation is otherwise. It has now been held in several decisions that jurisdiction of a Revisional Court under Section 25 Provincial Small Causes Court is wider than jurisdiction conferred under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. 7. I find that Revisional Court failed to appreciate true extent and scope of its jurisdiction under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and thus failed to scrutinise the trial Court judgment in correct perspective. 8. IN view of the above, the impugned orders dated 21st January 1983 and 13th July 1983 (Annexures 7 and 8 passed by Respondent Nos. I find that Revisional Court failed to appreciate true extent and scope of its jurisdiction under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and thus failed to scrutinise the trial Court judgment in correct perspective. 8. IN view of the above, the impugned orders dated 21st January 1983 and 13th July 1983 (Annexures 7 and 8 passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) are liable to be set aside the case be remitted to the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut for deciding Application 3-C (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) on merits after affording opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. It is, how ever, made clear that the Courts below shall decide recall application without being influenced, in any manner, by observation made in this judgment. The writ petition fails to the extent it prayed for quashing of order dated 6th January 1981. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. Judgment and orders dated 21st January 1983 and 13th July, 1983 (Annexures 7 and 8 respectively) passed by V Additional District Judge, Meerut (Respondent No. 1) are set aside with the direction that the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut shall decide Application 3c (Annexure-9) in accordance with law and observations made above. Petition partly allowed.