JUDGMENT : - B.K. Rathi, J. This revision has been directed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 22-8-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in S. C. C. Suit No. 42 of 1999. 2. THE facts giving rise to this revision are as follows: THE suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages was filed by the opposite party against the applicant. THE applicant contested the suit but later on absented. Therefore, the suit was decreed ex pane by the impugned order. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri P. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party and perused the record. 3. THE main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the judgment of the Court below is not a judgment in the eye of law being not in accordance with provisions of Order XX C. P. C. and therefore, the judgment is liable to be quashed. It is contended that in S. C. C. suit also the Judge is bound to frame the question for decision and should record a decision thereon. That no point for decision has been framed and there fore, the judgment is liable to be quashed. 4. THE learned Counsel in support of the argument has referred to few cases. The first case referred to is Balraj Teneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another, J. T. 1999 (6) SC 473:2000 (1) ARC 573 (SC) : 2000 SCFBRC 96. In this case the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 and Order XII, Rule 6 and Order 'xx, Rule 4 were considered. It was held that even if no written statement is filed there is no fact to be proved and the judgment can be passed on admission, but even such judgment ought to be in accordance with law by setting out reasoning. The other case referred to is M/s. Krishna Fine Art Printers v. Ram Chandra Sharma, 1979 (5) ALR 453. It was observed that the judgment can not contain a bald statement about the operative order. 5. The other case referred to is M/s. Krishna Fine Art Printers v. Ram Chandra Sharma, 1979 (5) ALR 453. It was observed that the judgment can not contain a bald statement about the operative order. 5. I have considered the judgment passed by trial Court and is of the view that the matter was considered and suit has not been decreed for the reason that the applicant the opposite party have been considered and it has been held that he has proved his case. In the absence of defendant there was no necessity to frame question for decision or issue. 6. THE judgment is ex-parte and there fore, the point for decision was not required to be framed specifically. THE merits of the case have been examined and the fact whether the opposite party is able to prove his case has also been considered. Therefore, the judgment in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Balraj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another (supra). I do not find any illegality in the judgment. It is also contended that information regarding the date was not given to the applicant and therefore he could not appear. The copy of the entire order sheet has been filed which negative the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant and show that the applicant was continuously making attempt to delay the disposal of the suit. He absented several times. The defendant was present on 28-7-2000 on which dated 11-8-2000 was fixed. He absented on that date without any sufficient reason and even did not apply for adjournment. Therefore, the suit was rightly proceeded exparte and was decided. 7. THERE is no ground to interfere in the judgment and order of the Court below. The revision is without merit and is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 21-9-2000 is hereby vacated. Revision dismissed.