Vijay Kumar And Another vs Panna Lal on 11 December, 2008

Civil Revision No. 1537 of 2008                                    1




      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                   Civil Revision No. 1537 of 2008

                    Date of Decision: 11.12.2008


Vijay Kumar and Another
                                                           ...Petitioners
                                Versus
Panna Lal
                                                         ... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate
         for the petitioners.

         Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate
         for the respondent.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

In the present case, eviction petition was filed against the

respondent-tenant. Learned Rent Controller had dismissed the eviction

petition on 25.1.2005. The petitioners applied for certified copy of

judgment 29.7.2005. The same was supplied to them on 10.8.2005. Still

appeal was filed by the landlord on 6.9.2005. Ground stated in the

application was that the petitioner was not informed by his counsel Mr.

S.K.Gupta, Advocate.

Learned Appellate Authority noticed the fact that the appeal

has also been filed by Mr. S.K.Gupta, Advocate, who was counsel in the

Court of learned Rent Controller. Learned Appellate Authority further

noticed that the name of the Clerk, who had not provided the information
Civil Revision No. 1537 of 2008 2

regarding dismissal of eviction petition, has not been mentioned in the

application. The petitioners have not only been negligent in pursing the

case but had taken the litigation in leisure mode.

Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has

sought indulgence of this Court on the ground that on the broad

principles, rights of the parties should be adjudicated, taking into

consideration fair play and balance of equities. Learned counsel further

states that for lapse on the part of petitioners, respondent can be

compensated by way of cost.

Taking into consideration conduct of the petitioner and the fact

that the rights of the parties should be adjudicated on merits, I am of the

view that order passed by learned Appellate Authority on 16.1.2008 is

required to be set aside and learned Appellate Authority after condoning

the delay ought to decide the appeal on merits.

Taking into consideration conduct of the petitioners, cost in the

present case is quantified at Rs.10,000/-

The landlord may appear before the Appellate Authority on

14.1.2009. On payment of cost, appeal be decided on merits.

In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed

off.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
December 11, 2008
“DK”