JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. In view of the order proposed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus commanding Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi to decide application for recording oral evidence marked as 33 Gah moved by the petitioner in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 2011 (Ashish Kumar Gupta vs. Ankush Mehrothra), pending in the Court of Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi. 4. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner approached the Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi by filing S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 2011 (Ashish Kumar Gupta vs. Ankush Mehrothra). The said suit was preferred by the petitioner for getting the possession of his shop situated at Dharmshala Roadh near Cinema Chauraha opposite Laxmi Market, Pargana Bahgar, Tehsil and District Hardoi and mense profits of the said shop which opposite party no.2 enjoyed @ Rs.1500/- per month from 08.03.2011 till the opposite party no.2 is in illegal possession of the said shop. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that written statement was filed by the opposite party no.2, denying the averments of the petitioner and taking the plea of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In order to contradict the additional statement made by opposite party no.2 in his written statement, the petitioner filed replication, wherein he clarified the position of law which exists as far as the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972) is concerned. 5. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that in order to testify the documents which included the rent agreements dated 28.02.2001 and 09.03.2006 and execution of which is denied by the opposite party no.2, the petitioner moved an application marked as 33 Gah dated 03.05.2013 for granting permission to record oral evidence of the witnesses named by him. 5. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that in order to testify the documents which included the rent agreements dated 28.02.2001 and 09.03.2006 and execution of which is denied by the opposite party no.2, the petitioner moved an application marked as 33 Gah dated 03.05.2013 for granting permission to record oral evidence of the witnesses named by him. It is also submitted that objection to the said application was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 29.05.2013, but since then the said application is pending before the Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi, which is said to be a hindrance created in the rights of the petitioner envisaged under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the innocuous prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. On due consideration, this Court feels that ends of justice would be served if necessary directions are issued to Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi, to consider and decide the application No. 33 Gah filed in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 2011 (Ashish Kumar Gupta vs. Ankush Mehrothra) at an early date. 8. Accordingly, Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi, is hereby directed to make an endeavour to consider and decide the application No. 33 Gah filed in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 2011 (Ashish Kumar Gupta vs. Ankush Mehrothra), if the same is pending before him, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.