Lal Chand vs Vinod Kumar And Mam Raj on 19 February, 2009

Civil Revision No.1012 of 1992 (O&M)       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                           Civil Revision No.1012 of 1992 (O&M)
                           Date of Decision       19.02.2009

Lal Chand
                                                 ...... petitioner
                           VERSUS

Vinod Kumar and Mam Raj
                                                 ...... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:     Mr.Gaurav Sethi, Advocate,
             for Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate,
             for the respondents.

                           *****

A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):

Petitioner has brought this petition for setting aside the

impugned judgment dated 10.12.1991 passed by Rent Controller, Narnaul

in Civil Suit No.05/1990 vide which application for setting aside the ex-

parte ejectment order dated 07.08.1990 was dismissed.

The ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord was

fixed for summoning on 20.02.1989. On that day, it was Sunday, as such

the case was taken up on 21.02.1989. Due to inadvertence, the petitioner-

tenant (herein referred as petitioner) could not appear before the Court on

that day. But later, he came to know that the judgment was passed against

him in this case on 07.08.1990, then immediately, he after obtaining the

copy of the order, moved an application for setting aside the exparte order

on 27.08.1990 which was dismissed on 10.12.1991. The application was

filed within limitation.

Civil Revision No.1012 of 1992 (O&M) 2

In view of the abovesaid facts, it appears that the absence of

the petitioner is unintentional. The question of the ejectment relating to

shop was meritorious in nature. The petitioner was not to be benefitted by

filing the delayed application. Passing of an exparte decree in a case of this

nature is too harsh a consequence to be upheld. Under these circumstances,

there are sufficient grounds for setting aside exparte decree. However, the

respondent could be compensated with costs and other conditions could be

imposed.

Resultantly, the present petition is accepted and the impugned

order dated 07.08.1990 is set aside, and consequently, exparte order dated

07.08.1990 is also set aside, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs and

it is further directed that the respondent would make payment of the rent at

the market rate upto date as assessed by the Court.

Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller,

Narnaul on 10.03.2009.

February 19, 2009                                  (A.N.JINDAL)
mamta-II                                              JUDGE