JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 3.9.2003 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Special Judge, Aligarh.
2. The dispute relates to an accommodation, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2001 referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed accommodation,"
3. From the perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the petitioner filed a Suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages etc. against the respondents. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 79 of 1991.
4. It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Aligarh, the said S.C.C. Suit No. 79 of 1991 was decreed exparte. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 29th May, 2001 has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
5. Thereafter, it appears, the petitioner got possession of the disputed accommodation on 10th September, 2001 in execution of the said ex-parte decree.
6. It further appears that the respondents filed a Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the said judgment and order dated 29th May, 2001. The said Revision was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
7. The said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was registered as Misc. Case No. 243 of 2001.
8. By the order dated 3.9.2003, the learned Special Judge, Aligarh allowed the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the said Revision.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
10. I have heard Shri Pramod Bhardwaj, (earned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.
11. It is well settled that the Court should normally lean in favour of hearing both the sides, and decide the case on merit.
12. The Court should adopt a liberal view while dealing with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
13. Learned Special Judge, Aligarh has given cogent and valid reasons' in the impugned order while allowing the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the respondents. No illegality or infirmity has been shown in the impugned order dated 3.9.2003. Therefore, no interference is called for with the said order.
14. Even otherwise, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.