JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/revisionist. 2. This revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1988 has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 23.10.2017 in SCC Suit No. 231/2012, Saroj Arya & Others v. Shyam Behari Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar. 3. The revision has been filed beyond limitation by 79 days along with a delay condonation application. In the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application, the cause for delay in filing the revision has been stated in Paragraph No. 4, 5 & 6 as under: "4. That accordingly the certified copy of the impugned order dated 23.10.2017, certified copy of the formal order was applied immediately, however due to inadvertent the certified copy of the formal order got lost by the clerk of the counsel of the defendant-revisionist before the Civil Court. 5. That it is also noteworthy to submit at this juncture that the wife of Shri Alok Mishra, Chief Trusty of the defendant-revisionist was contesting the election of Mayor at Kanpur Nagar and under the circumstances the Chief Trusty of the Trust was severely engaged in company and other duties towards his wife. 6. That thereafter the request was made for the formal order then the same was again applied and the formal order was issued on 24.01.2018." 4. The afore-quoted paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been sworn on personal knowledge by one Neeraj Pande stating himself to be the Pairokar of the defendant-revisionist. The averment made in Paragraph No. 4 that "due to inadvertent the certified copy of the formal order got lost by the clerk of the counsel of the defendant-revisionist before the Civil Court" cannot be a matter of personal knowledge of the deponent of the aforesaid affidavit. 5. Neither the name of the clerk nor the name of the counsel of the civil court has been disclosed in the afore-quoted paragraph no. 4 nor the affidavit of the alleged clerk has been filed. Thus, the delay has been properly explained. Consequently, in the absence of sufficient cause, the delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 6. Even on merits, the defendant-revisionist has no case at all. 4 nor the affidavit of the alleged clerk has been filed. Thus, the delay has been properly explained. Consequently, in the absence of sufficient cause, the delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. 6. Even on merits, the defendant-revisionist has no case at all. It appears that the order dated 27.09.2016 was passed in SCC Suit No. 231/2012, Saroj Arya & Others v. Shyam Behari Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust whereby application 30 Ga was allowed and application 38 Ga was disposed of by the court below. The operative portion of the aforesaid order dated 27.09.2016 is reproduced herein below: ^^rn~uqlkj Áfroknh }kjk ÁLrqr ÁkFkZuk&i= 30x Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA oknh dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og ,xzhes.V fnuakfdr 30-08-2001 ftldk mYys[k mlds }kjk okn&i= ds ÁLrj la[;k 3 esa fd;k x;k gS dh Áfr fu;r frfFk 19-10-2016 rd nkf[ky djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA rn~uqlkj vkifr oknh 38x fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh okLrs lk{; fnuakd 19-10-2016 dk is'k gksA** 7. It appears that thereafter an application 54 Ga was filed by the defendant-revisionist for a direction to the plaintiff-respondent to file original agreement dated 30.08.2001 in compliance to the afore-quoted order dated 27.09.2016 to which the plaintiff-respondent filed an objection 55 Ga stating that he has complied with order dated 27.09.2016 and the original agreement is with the defendant-petitioner. The application 54 Ga has been rejected by the impugned order dated 2.10.2017. 8. Submission of learned counsel for defendant-revisionist is that the plaintiff-respondent has filed original copy of the alleged agreement dated 30.08.2001 in compliance to the order of the court below dated 27.09.2016. 9. In the impugned order, the court below has recorded a finding that in compliance to the order dated 27.09.2016, the plaintiff-respondent has filed copy of the agreement vide List 44 Ga and 45 Ga. The application 54 Ga was filed by the defendant-revisionist for a direction to the plaintiff-respondent to file original agreement dated 30.08.2001. The plaintiff-respondent has taken a stand that the original agreement is with the defendant- revisionist. It was further stated by the plaintiff-respondent that the copy of the aforesaid agreement has been filed by him in compliance to the order of the court dated 27.09.2016. Perusal of the order dated 27.09.2016 shows that the court below has directed the plaintiff-respondent to file a copy of the agreement. It was further stated by the plaintiff-respondent that the copy of the aforesaid agreement has been filed by him in compliance to the order of the court dated 27.09.2016. Perusal of the order dated 27.09.2016 shows that the court below has directed the plaintiff-respondent to file a copy of the agreement. The said order has been complied with by the plaintiff-respondent as has been observed in the impugned order dated 23.10.2017. The aforesaid suit is pending since the year 2012. It is settled law that rent cases should be decided expeditiously. It appears that repeated applications are being filed by the defendant-revisionist to delay the disposal of the case. 10. Thus, even on merit, I do not find any substance in this revision. 11. In view of aforesaid, the delay condonation application is rejected. 12. Consequently, the revision also stands dismissed.