R. H. ZAIDI,J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Present petition arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th May, 1996 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit and the judgment and order dated 29th August, 1998 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Bareilly dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. ( 2 ) IT appears that respondent No. 3 filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner from the building in question on the ground of default and sub-letting after service of notice of termination of the tenancy of the petitioner. It was pleaded that inspite of service of notice of demand and termination of tenancy, neither the amount of rent was paid not the building in question was vacated. The petitioner filed no written statement inspite of service of summons issued by the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court directed the suit to proceed ex parte against him. Subsequently, an application was made for setting aside the order to proceed ex parte, which was allowed on 11. 1. 1995 and time till 18. 1. 1995 was granted to file the written statement. Instead of filing the written statement, the petitioner filed an application on 18. 1. 1995 for adjournment of the hearing. On the said application, 21. 1. 1995 were fixed for filing the written staement and hearing. Even then, no written statement was filed. The trial Court again on 7. 3. 1995, granted time till 28. 3. 1995 to file the written statement failing which, order to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10, C. P. C. , was passed. Even till 28. 3. 1995, no written statement was filed. The trial Court, thereafter, had no option but to proceed in accordance with the law. The plaintiff respondent produced the relevant evidence and proved his case. The trial Court after going through the material on the record, came to the conslusion that the case as pleaded by the plaintiff, was proved and decreed the suit ex parte by judgment and decree dated 29. 5. 1995. The plaintiff respondent produced the relevant evidence and proved his case. The trial Court after going through the material on the record, came to the conslusion that the case as pleaded by the plaintiff, was proved and decreed the suit ex parte by judgment and decree dated 29. 5. 1995. Challenging the validity of the said decree, no application under Order IX Rule 13, C. P. C. , was filed but the said order was challenged under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by filing S. C. C. Revision No. 30 of 1995 before the Court below. The Court below after hearing the parties held as under :-"on considering the facts and circumstances it is well found that the defendant was given proper opportunity to produce the evidence but he did not afford (avail) that opportunity. It appears that the defendants had to bear a great loss due to carelessness and innocence of his, course. So far the findings of the learned lower court are concerned, they are on the basis of evidence, therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the learned lower court on the basis of evidence can not be disturbed by the revisional court. The order passed by the learned lower court was within its jurisdiction and no illegality or irregularity is seen. The record dearly shows that a delaying tactics was adopted from the defendants side which may be either at the instance of the defendants or by his cousel on his accord but undue liberty can not be given to any party to prolong a case pending since long in the court of the plea of defendants is accepted one after another there would not be an end of litigation. In the instant case the plaintiff has successfully proved his case and his suit was rightly decreed by the learned lower Court. I do not see any reason to interfere the findings recorded by the learned lower court. In the circumstances this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed with costs. "having recorded the aforesaid finding, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 27. 8. 1998, hence the present petition. I do not see any reason to interfere the findings recorded by the learned lower court. In the circumstances this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed with costs. "having recorded the aforesaid finding, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 27. 8. 1998, hence the present petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel apearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was wholly illegal inasmuch as it failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the law and the suit was decreed wholly illegally. According to him, the revisional Court has also acted illegally in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the case of Balraj Tanaja and another v. Sunil Madan and another. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the order passed by the revisional Court. It was urged that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file written statement and to lead evidence in the case. The petitioner failed to avail the said opportunities and deliberately with a view to linger on the proceedings, even did not file the written statement. The trial Court, therefore, had no option but to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10, C. P. C. , and decide the suit on the basis of material on the record. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent referred to and relied upon the case of Bishan Singh v. IX Additional District Judge, Agra and others. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. ( 6 ) FROM the facts stated above it is evident that the petitioner was afforded several opportunities to file the written statement but the petitioner deliberately did not file the written statement and did not obey the orders passed by the trial Court. The trial Court, therefore, had no option but to proceed under order V1i1 Rule 10, C. P. C. , which provides as under :-"10. The trial Court, therefore, had no option but to proceed under order V1i1 Rule 10, C. P. C. , which provides as under :-"10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court-Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit, and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. " ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it can not be said that the procedure prescribed for deciding the suit was not followed. In Balraj Tanejas case (supra), the Apex Court ruled that even in the judgment passed under Order VIII Rule 10, C. P. C. , reasons should be recorded. The trial Court recorded a clear and categorical finding that from the material on the record, the case of the plaintiff respondent was fully proved inasmuch as the facts stated in the plaint remained unrebutted which shall be deemed to have been admitted. It was further held that the case of the plaintiff respondent was fully proved, therefore, it cannot be said that the reasons for the judgment were not recorded by the trial Court. In the similar facts and circumstances, as of the present case, in Bishan Singhs case (supra), this Court, after considering the relevant authorities on the point ruled as under :-" 14. A reading of the aforsaid rule shows that while exercising the powers under Rule 5 of Order VIII, C. P. C. the Court has got the discretion to require the plaintiff to prove the facts deemed to have been admitted for want of denial or specific denial of the facts pleaded in the plaint, but while exercising the power under Rule 10 of Order VIII, C. P. C. , when the defendant failed to file the written statement within the time prescribed or fixed by the Court, the Court has got no discretion, but to pronounce the judgment against him or may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. 18. 18. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court of the country, although, it is not obligatory for the trial Court to pronounce the judgment in the case where the written statement is not filed, but if the judgment is pronounced and decree is passed, the same cannot be held to be illegal. The trial Court is at liberty to pronounce the judgment, if the written statement is not filed by the defendant inspite of the time being granted for the said purpose within the time granted by the Court. 23. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court below was justified in holding that the petitioner wanted to delay the disposal of the suit. He de-liberately did not file the written statement and also did not pay the costs awarded by the trial Court on several adjournment applications filed by the petitioner and that he was guilty of abuse of the process of the Court. In my opinion, the Courts below did not commit any error of law and jurisdiction in decreeing the suit and dismissing the revision and review application filed by the petitioner. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Counstitution of Indian is made out. " ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions, the Court below was right in holding that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. ( 9 ) THE writ petition fails and is dismissed but no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed. .