ORDER : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present civil revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Pakur in Title Suit No. 45 of 2013 whereby and whereunder leave to contest the eviction proceeding under Section 14(4) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 was granted to defendant without recording any reasons as required under law. Therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and fit to be set aside. 3. It is further submitted that in the same case, earlier the suit was decreed without affording any leave to contest the defendant which was challenged by the defendant vide Civil Revision No.01 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2019 the matter was remitted back for afresh decision on the application under Section 14(4) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000, but the learned trial court without recording any specific grounds and reasons, passed a sketchy and non-speaking order which has to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly passed the impugned order as per the direction of Hon’ble Court passed in Civil Revision No.01 of 2018 and also considered the settled principle of law passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia & Others versus Bishan Chand Maheshwari & Another reported in 2017(3) SCC 189 . Such type of application does not require detailed discussion of every pros and cons. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference. 5. It is further apprised that at present the original suit has been proceeded at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and three witnesses have been examined by the plaintiff. It would be in the ends of justice to proceed the case for decision on merits. Therefore, this revision has no merit which is fit to be dismissed. 7. Considering the aforesaid backgrounds of the case and progress in the trial of the eviction suit before the concerned trial court, the impugned order passed requires no interference by way of this civil revision. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed.