1. The petitioner-defendant has filed this Civil Revision questioning Sub-Judge, Jammu's order dated 21.10.2008 whereby his defence was struck off, besides order dated 3.2.2010 whereby review of the above order was declined. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent appearing in person and considered their submissions. 3. There appears merit in the respondent's contention that petitioner's revision against the orders questioned in the Revision may not be maintainable in view of the provisions of the proviso appended to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1997 (1920 A.D). However, the order whereby the petitioner's defence was struck off on the ground that his absence and non-production of evidence was deliberate and intentional and that he had not paid the costs for adjournment of the case on earlier occasions, appears harsh and is likely to result in failure of justice, for, the other options available to the Court under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for proceeding against the defendant for his default in terms of Order 17 Rule 3 (a) or under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, do not appear to have been considered for resort thereto; particularly when the Suit was at its fag end. While considering the harsh effect of the trial Court's order that had been passed without considering the other options available to the Court under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code, it cannot be lost sight of that justice has eluded the parties despite there being in litigation for over a period of eleven years. The respondent's Suit for petitioner's eviction from House No. 842, Subash Nagar, Jammu and recovery of arrears of rent payable from April 1996 onwards, filed in the year 2001, has not yet attained finality in the trial Court. 4. Therefore, regardless of the fact that the petitioner's Revision against the orders may not be maintainable, yet in the facts and circumstances of the case, jurisdiction under Section 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir needs to be exercised to see that petitioner was allowed opportunity to project his case in defence to the respondent's Suit so that both the parties know the fate of their claim/defence and justice was done to them without any further delay. 5. 5. It is, therefore, considered appropriate to set aside the orders of the trial Court on terms appearing hereunder additionally directing the trial Court to determine the Suit expeditiously. 6. This Petition is, therefore, accepted allowing last and final opportunity to the petitioner to appear as his own witness and produce all such evidence that he may like so to do, on only one date of hearing. No further adjournment shall be allowed to him for the purpose on any count whatsoever. This shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. 7. The petitioner-defendant to appear before the learned Trial Court for his statement and production of evidence on July 21,2012. 8. The Trial Court is directed to see that after July 21,2012, the case was taken up on its Board every week so that the trial was concluded within four months. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on July 21,2012.