Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.
(1) Unfortunately, I have been denied the benefit of assistance by Mr. S.K. Bhatia, counsel for the petitioner. Since, neither the petitioner nor his counsel put in appearance, I have heard Mr. J.K. Seth.
(2) In this revision petition, the petitioner has made a grievance in respect of a judgment and a decree dated 14th October, 1981 passed by Shri P.L. Singia, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The brief facts are that the respondent had brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and some amenities charges to the tune of Rs. 44,741.52 paise against the petitioner. The petitioner, after putting in his appearance engaged a counsel, but thereafter failed to submit written statement as directed by the court. His counsel even failed to submit his power of attorney. The suit was listed for 17th June, 1981, on which date, it was adjourned to 14th July, 1981. Thereafter, on 14th July, 1981, a notice was issued for 19th August, 1981 for submission of written statement. On 19th August, 1981 Mr. S.K. Bhatia Advocate appeared for the petitioner and filed Memo of appearance. On that date, the court below ordered to file written statement on 4th September, 1981, but again on that day too Mr. S.K. Bhatia, counsel for the petitioner failed to submit written statement and power of attorney. He was burdened with costs of Rs. 100.00 and another opportunity was afforded to him. A direction was issued that written statement should be submitted on 14th October, 1981, when again not to speak of filing the written statement or paying the costs, but both the petitioner and his counsel failed to put in appearance. The court below, thereafter, at once proceeded under Order 8, Rule 10 and after pronouncing the judgment, passed a decree for Rs. 44,741.52 paise against the petitioner.
(3) Admittedly, this revision petition has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge on original side. The remedy of the petitioner was two-fold. He could either make an application for setting aside this decree or he could prefer an appeal under section 96 CPC. He has chosen neither of the two remedies. The reason for not doing so is obvious. If he were to choose appropriate remedy of appeal, he had to pay advalorem court-lees and he had further either to deposit the decretal amount in the court or to furnish security as the court in its discretion might have directed. This is normally envisaged by order 41, rule I sub-rule (iii) CPC. In all probability, thereforee, in order to avoid payment of court fees or depositing the amount in the court the petitioner chose a wrong remedy. The judgment and decree against which, grievance is made in this petition is appealable. The revision is not maintainable. With these observations, this revision petition is dismissed.