JUDGMENT : [Salil Kumar Rai, J.] 1. All the three petitions arise from Small Causes Case No. 13/2020 instituted by the landlord for arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant from the suit property and were, therefore, connected and have been heard together. 2. S.C.C. Revision (Defective) No. 18 of 2022 has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 29.4.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Gorakhpur in Small Causes Case No. 13 of 2020 whereby the Court below has rejected the application of the tenant-revisionist to dismiss the plaint instituting S.C.C.Case No. 13 of 2020 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 3. The revision has been reported as defective because formal order has not been filed. However, the Court has proceeded to hear the revision on merits. 4. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C was filed by the tenant-defendants stating that he had deposited the requisite rents through internet banking and therefore, no cause of action vested in the plaintiff-landlords for instituting the suit for arrears of rent and eviction from the suit property. The plea of the revisionists related to a question of fact and is outside the purview of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 5. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the cause of action has been stated in S.C.C.Suit No. 13 of 2020. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the revisionists under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. There is no material irregularity or any other illegality in the order dated 29.4.2022. The revision is dismissed. 6. S.C.C.Revision (Defective) No. 19 of 2022 has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 29.4.2022 whereby the opportunity of the revisionist-tenant to file written statement has been closed. 7. The revision has also been reported as defective because formal order has not been filed. However, the Court has proceeded to hear the revision on merits. 8. A perusal of the order dated 29.4.2022 shows that the trial Court has taken a very technical view regarding opportunity to the revisionist-tenant to file his written statement and interpretation of Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. The proviso to Order 8 Rule 10 are procedural provisions and are not to be used to penalise a defaulting litigant. 9. 8. A perusal of the order dated 29.4.2022 shows that the trial Court has taken a very technical view regarding opportunity to the revisionist-tenant to file his written statement and interpretation of Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. The proviso to Order 8 Rule 10 are procedural provisions and are not to be used to penalise a defaulting litigant. 9. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A Chunawala and Company and others, (2018) 6 SCC 639 , the order dated 29.4.2022 passed by the trial Court is hereby quashed. The revision is allowed. The revisionist-tenant is permitted to file his written statement by 26.8.2022. 10. The trial Court shall accept the said written statement if filed by 26.8.2022 and shall proceed in accordance with law to decide S.C.C. Case No. 13 of 2020. S.C.C.Revision (Defective) No. 19 of 2022 is allowed with the following directions. 11. It appears from the averments made in Writ Petition No. 2056 of 2022 filed by the landlord that the trial of the case has been completed by the S.C.C. Court but judgement has not yet been delivered. 12. In view of the order passed in S.C.C. Revision (Defective) No. 19 of 2022, the trial Court shall proceed to decide S.C.C. Case No. 13 of 2020 after accepting the written statement expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 14. S.C.C. Revision (Defective) No. 18 of 2022 is dismissed and S.C.C. Revision (Defective) No. 19 of 2022 is allowed with directions stated above.