Judgment This writ petition is being heard by the consent of the parties at the admission stage finally. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2006 passed by S.C.C. Suit NO.3 of 1997 Swami Shukdevanand Trust and another Vs. Dinesh Chandra Paliwal and judgment and order dated 13-2-2007 passed by the District Judge Haridwar in S.C.C. Revision NO.10 of 2006 Dinesh Chandra Paliwal Vs. Swami Shukdevanand Trust and another and its consequential execution proceedings. 3. Relevant facts of the case are that the S.C.C. Suit NO.3 of 1997 was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs against the petitioner -defendant for arrears of rent and eviction after terminating the tenancy of the defendants vide notice dated 2-12-1996. The petitioner contested the suit and denied the allegation that he was defaulter in payment of rent. It was also denied that the Charitable trust was owner of the property and therefore, the property did not fall under the purview of Section 2(1 )(bb) of the UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that the S.C.C. suit was not maintainable. It was alleged that the petitioner was tenant of the trust and the registered society and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The parties led evidence before the trial court. Ultimately, the Judge Small Cause Court passed a decree of mesne profit and eviction against the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 29-9-2006. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision against the judgment and decree before the District Judge Pauri Garhwal which was registered as S.C.C. Revision No.10 of 2006 Dinesh Chandra Paliwal Vs. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust Parmarth Niketan. The petitioner moved a transfer application before the High Court which was registered as Transfer Application No. 18 of 2006 and this Court passed an interim order dated 4-11-2006 to the effect that the proceedings of the revision shall remain till the next date of listing. On presentation of the interim order before the District Judge, the matterwas adjoumed to 20-3-2007. The transfer application of the petitioner was allowed and the revision was transferred to the Court of the District Judge Haridwar vide order dated 18-12-2006 passed by this Court. On presentation of the interim order before the District Judge, the matterwas adjoumed to 20-3-2007. The transfer application of the petitioner was allowed and the revision was transferred to the Court of the District Judge Haridwar vide order dated 18-12-2006 passed by this Court. The District Judge Pauri Garhwal appointed special messenger for transmission of record to the District Judge Haridwar vide order dated 22-12-2006 through Advocate Commissioner. The record was received in the court of District Judge Hardwar on 23-12-2006, who ordered issue of notice to both the parties fixing the date 2-12007. On 2-1-2007, petitioner's counsel Sri Vipin Goel informed the court that he had no instruction from the petitioner. The court then ordered for issue of notice to the revisionist-petitioner fixed 15-12007. On that day, the counsel for the revisionist moved an application before the court that he could not inform the revisionist of the date fixed and the revisionist had also not contacted him, therefore, he requested the court to adjourn the matter with a request to effect service of notice upon the revisionist. The District Judge adjourned the case to 13-2-2007 on the ground that both the parties' counsel agreed to argue the revision on the date fixed. It was also noted in the order if the revision is not argued on that date, the revision shall be decided on merit. However, on 12-22007 the counsel for the revisionist moved an application for permission to withdraw his power on behalf of the revisionist. The application was ordered to be put on the date fixed, i.e. 13-2-2007. The revisionist had not appeared before the Court on 13-2-2007 and the District Judge dismissed the revision on merit after hearing the learned counsel for the opposite party. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist has come up in the present writ petition. 4. The main contention of petitioner is that the District Judge Hardwar has illegally passed the impugned order without service of notice upon him after the learned counsel for the revisionist had applied for withdrawal of his Vakalatnama. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arvind Vashist as well as Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri D. Barthwal appearing for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner is also present in person before the Court today. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arvind Vashist as well as Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri D. Barthwal appearing for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner is also present in person before the Court today. 6. From a bare perusal of the events narrated above after the transfer of the revision to the Court of District Judge, Hardwar, it is very much clear that the counsel for the petitioner Sri Vipin Goel has made a statement in the court on 2-1-2007 that he had no instruction from the revisionist and once the District Judge had ordered for issue of notice to the revisionist-petitioner on 2-1-2007 fixing 15-1-2007, it was for the court to have examined whether the notice was sufficiently served upon the party. The order-sheet dated 13-2-2007 of the court of the District Judge Hardwar also shows that the counsel for the revisionist informed the court that he had no instruction from the revisionist and he wants to withdraw his Vakalatnama. However, the District Judge has made an observation in the order-sheet that the revisionist has information of the date fixed in the case and deliberately, the revisionist was not appearing before the court to linger on the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has hammered the observation made by the District Judge that the revisionist had full knowledge of the date fixed without ensuring service of notice upon the revisionist and the District Judge proceeded to decide the revision in the absence of the revisionist, which is against the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel has therefore urged that the revisionist had been denied reasonable opportunity to press his revision, therefore, the impugned order is liable to set aside. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some force. 7. In the circumstances of the case and without going into merit of the order passed by the District Judge, Hardwar, I am of the view that the revisionist-petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity to press/argue his revision, therefore, the order impugned. is liable to be set aside and at least one last opportunity ought to have been given to the revisionist to argue the revision on merit before the District Judge, Hardwar. 8. is liable to be set aside and at least one last opportunity ought to have been given to the revisionist to argue the revision on merit before the District Judge, Hardwar. 8. In the course of the arguments learned counsel for the respondents Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, has submitted that the revisionist has not yet complied with the order of this Court dated 18-12-2006, whereby the petitioner was directed to make deposit of the entire decretal amount before the Judge Small Cause Court to avoid his eviction and in case of default, the stay granted on 31-10-2006 was made to stand vacated automatically. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the petitioner be directed to deposit the entire decretal amount as well as the amount, which became due after passing the decree before the learned Judge S.C.C. to avoid his eviction from the disputed premises as ordered by this Court on 18-12-2006 in WPMS No. 1637 of 2006. 9. With the consent of the parties, 12-03-2007 is fixed for hearing of revision on merit before the District Judge, Hardwar. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13-2-2007 passed by the District Judge Hardwar in S.C.C. Revision NO.10 of 2006, Dinesh Chandra Paliwal Vs. Swami Sukhdevanand Trust Parmarth Niketan and another, is set aside. The revision stands restored. Both the parties shall argue the revision on merit before the District Judge on 12-3-2007. as agreed by learned counsel for both the parties. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed accommodation till the decision of the revision provided the petitioner deposits the entire decretal amount including up-to-date monthly rent before the Judge Small Cause Court concerned before 12-3-2007 as already directed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1637 (M/S) of 2006, failing which the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. Costs easy.