JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is inter alia challenging the order dated 17.10.2011 whereby the XIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Bareilly in Small Cause Revision No. 7 of 2009 (Surya Prakash v. Smt. Santosh Kumari and another) has rejected the Application dated 17.10.2011 (Paper No. 53-C) whereby and wherein the prayers made by the petitioner before the Revisional Court to either remand the entire matter (the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC) filed by the petitioner (third party applicant) to the lower Court for giving its findings on all the points afresh after taking into consideration the additional evidence admitted on record during the pendency of the revision, after the order of remand dated 20.10.2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows; 3. Respondent No. 1 allegedly claiming herself to be the landlady of the shop in dispute instituted a suit for ejectement, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the Respondent No. 2, Jagdish Narain Mehra on 30.4.2003. The said suit was registered as Small Cause Suit No. 29 of 2003 and was also decreed for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits on 26.8.2003 by the Judge Small Cause Court, Bareilly. 4. The petitioner is a third party. After acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid decree filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on 18.11.2003 (hereinafter referred to as the application) which was registered as Misc. Case No. 57 of 2003. The said application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 was objected by both the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing their objections dated 22.12.2003 and 30.1.2004. In the aforementioned objections it was, inter alia, stated that no such rent agreement as alleged by the petitioner was executed on 7.4.2011 by Mohan Swaroop and that the petitioner in possession of the shop in dispute was a servant of the Respondent No. 2 and therefore he had no independent right to raise objections to the execution of the aforesaid decree for eviction. The aforesaid objections were counter objected by two sets of counter objections by the petitioner. After the exchange of pleadings and affidavit, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bareilly vide its judgment and order dated 28.2.2009 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The aforesaid objections were counter objected by two sets of counter objections by the petitioner. After the exchange of pleadings and affidavit, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bareilly vide its judgment and order dated 28.2.2009 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 28.2.2009 preferred a Small Cause Revision No. 7 of 2009 and in the aforesaid revision an application dated 7.10.2010 (Paper No. 28-C) was filed by the petitioner purporting to be under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permitting the petitioner to place on record the original Rent Deed dated 7.4.2000 in evidence. 5. The Revisional Court while finally disposing of the said application had admitted in evidence the documents bearing Paper No. 31-C/2 to 31-C/4 and the original Rend Deed dated 7.4.2000 but had remitted to the Trial Court on an issue as to whether the aforesaid document bear the signature of Mohan Swaroop or whether the said document was forged one or whether the said document was ever executed or not and in that connection the trial Court after taking evidence will transmit the evidence to the Revisional Court. On 21.5.2011 (Paper No. 249/C) was filed by the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 57 2003 to lead oral original evidence of the petitioner and that of another witness Chandra Mohan Arora. However, the said application dated 21.5.2011 was rejected by the Court below by order dated 23.5.2011. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 58493 of 2011 which was too dismissed on 14.10.2011. The trial Court finally in compliance of the Revisional Courts order dated 20.10.2010, after collecting evidence in support of the documents specified by the Revisional Court forwarded the said evidence which were recorded by it to the Revisional Court. 6. An application (Paper No. 53-C) dated 17.10.2011 was filed wherein it was stated that the Revisional Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is completely prohibited in giving a finding of fact. Hence, the matter be remanded to the lower Court, inter alia, for giving its finding also on the points on which evidence was recorded by the lower Court as per the Revisional Court’s order dated 20.10.2010. Hence, the matter be remanded to the lower Court, inter alia, for giving its finding also on the points on which evidence was recorded by the lower Court as per the Revisional Court’s order dated 20.10.2010. The Revisional Court by its order dated 17.10.2011 has rejected the said application. Hence, the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has merely argued that the Revisional Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act is not competent to record any finding of fact and the matter should have been remanded back to the trial Court for recording a finding of fact on the evidence collected by it in order to ascertain the veracity of the execution of the document in question and by not doing so if the Revisional Court itself proceeds to record a finding of fact for the first time then it not only commits serious error of law which would vitiate the entire proceedings but would also prejudice the case of the petitioner. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned order passed by the Court below and has stated that the application filed by the Court below was a device to delay the disposal of the revision and has also referred to the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 48214 of 2010 whereby this Court had directed the Revisional Court i.e. Additional District Judge, 12th Bareilly to decide S.S.C. Revision No. 7 of 2009, Surya Prakash v. Smt. Santosh Kumari and another, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner himself had opposed in the trial Court, the prayer of the respondents for recording a finding on the evidence collected by it, as such, the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold with the same breath. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Revisional Court cannot record a finding of fact on the evidence collected by the trial Court at this stage. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Revisional Court cannot record a finding of fact on the evidence collected by the trial Court at this stage. It is pertinent to note that when the Revisional Court by order dated 20.10.2010 had remitted the matter to the trial Court to record evidence and to send the same back to the Revisional Court, no objection was raised by the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted himself to the order dated 20.10.2010 and in compliance of the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Revisional Court had appeared before the trial Court and adduced the evidence in his support on the document submitted by him before the Revisional Court. It is also pertinent to note that when the Respondent No. 1 had made a prayer to the Court below to record a finding on the evidences collected by the trial Court, the petitioner himself had opposed the prayer and had argued that since the Revisional Court has not given any direction for recording any finding, as such, the trial Court was not competent to do so. Consequently the lower Court accepting the contention of the petitioner rejected the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents and forwarded the evidence without recording any finding to the Revisional Court. Thus, the aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the petitioner has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent with the trial Court for recording any finding and now before the Revisional Court an application has been filed by him for remanding the matter to the trial Court for recording its finding on the evidence collected by it. 11. It cannot also be ignored that this Court by order dated 12.8.2010 had already directed the Revisional Court in Writ Petition No. 48214 of 2010 to decide the SCC Revision No. 7 of 2009 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order but the petitioner instead of cooperating in the matter was just trying to delay the disposal of the revision. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Revisional Court under Section 25 of the Act cannot record a finding on issue of fact of which no finding has been recorded by the lower Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has place the following decisions : 1. Babu Ram v. The Addl. Dist. Judge, Dehradun, 1983 ARC 15 (DB). 2. Habib Ahmad v. 5th Addl. Distt. Judge, 2004 (22) LCD 608. 3. Mool Chand v. Trilok Chand and others, 2001 (1) ARC 394. 4. Abid Ali (Dead.) through L. Rs. v. VIth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow and others. 5. Mohd. Naseem Barbar v. Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow and another. 6. Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545 (DB). 13. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that ordinarily the Revisional Court under Section 25 of the Act cannot record finding of fact on the issue of fact on which no finding has been recorded by the trial Court however in exceptional cases, the revisional can record its own finding. Since, in the present case, entire evidence was available on record, it was not necessary for the Revisional Court to have remitted the case to the trial Court for the purpose of recording a finding of fact, the Revisional Court can decide the case itself on the basis of the material available on record. There is no prohibition in law that under no circumstances, the Revisional Court can record its finding particularly when the entire evidence is available on record. Here, it is not a case of reassessment or reappraisal of evidence. It cannot be ignored that when the matter was remitted to the trial Court by the Revisional Court by its order dated 20.10.2010 for taking evidence, no objection whatsoever was raised by the petitioner, rather he complied with the order and appeared before the trial Court, and lead evidence in his support and also opposed the prayer of the Respondent No. 1 in the trial Court to record finding of fact on the evidence recorded by it. Now after more than a year, he cannot be permitted to raise an objection that the Revisional Court cannot record a finding on the evidence collected by the lower Court particularly when already there is an order of this Court in writ petition No. 48214 of 2010 directing the Revisional Court to decide the S.S.C. Revision No. 7 of 2009, Surya Prakash v. Smt. Santosh Kumari and another, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 14. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of C. Chandramohan v. Senogottaiyan (Dead) by L. Rs. and others, AIR 2000 SC 568 , has held as follows; “11.From a combined reading of clause (i) of sub-section (2), the proviso and the Explanation, it is manifest that it is only when the Rent Controller is satisfied that a tenants default to pay or tender the rent is wilful, that he can order eviction of the tenant. The question of wilful default to pay or tender rent to a landlord by a tenant is a mixed question of law and fact. Where the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are illegal, erroneous or perverse, the High Court, having regard to the ambit of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, will be well within its jurisdiction in reversing the findings impugned before it and recording its own findings. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Mundri Lal v. Smt. Sushila Ran another, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 911, has held as follows : “20. There cannot be any doubt whatso ever that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the fact that a revision is provided for by the statute, and not an appeal, itself is suggestive of the fact that ordinarily revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when a question of law arises.” “21. We, however, do not mean to say that under no circumstances finding of fact cannot be interfered therewith. But the fact that a revision is provided for by the statute, and not an appeal, itself is suggestive of the fact that ordinarily revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when a question of law arises.” “21. We, however, do not mean to say that under no circumstances finding of fact cannot be interfered therewith. A pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence although may not be interfered with but if such finding has been arrived at upon taking into consideration irrelevant factors or therefor relevant fact has been ignored, the Revisional Court will have the requisite jurisdiction to interfere with a finding of fact. Applicability of the provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Act may in that sense involve determination of mixed question of law and fact." 16. This Court in the case of Chotey Lal v. Bankey Lal, 1977 ARC 249, has held as follows; “In Ram Narain v. Kanhaiya Lal Vishwakarma, 1965 ALJ 989 it was held that under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the Court has no power to look into the evidence of the case and to decide whether the finding of fact arrived at by the Court below is justified by the evidence on record or not. This case is distinguishable. To go into the evidence of the case and to decide whether the finding of fact arrived at by the Court below is justified by the evidence on or record is one thing; but the recording of the finding that the trial Court’s finding of perverse or not in accordance with law and thereafter to correctly assess the evidence and record a finding is a different thing. The former situation did not arise in this case. The observation in Joti Prasad v. Ram Chandra are only obiter and of not much help. The Revisional Court had the option either decide the question after holding that the finding of the trial Court was perverse or to send the matter back for a decision afresh. If it is chose the former course, I cannot hold that it committed any jurisdictional error. On the other hand it may well be said that the Revisional Court did justice to the parties because it prevented the parties from going into another inning. This, therefore, is not a fit case for interference.” 17. If it is chose the former course, I cannot hold that it committed any jurisdictional error. On the other hand it may well be said that the Revisional Court did justice to the parties because it prevented the parties from going into another inning. This, therefore, is not a fit case for interference.” 17. In view of the above discussions, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. 18. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the present order has been passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as precedent for the other cases. —————