JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This Is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 5.3.1983 passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Rohtak who dismissed the petition under Section 13 of Smt. Dilbari against Harbhagwan Dass under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C.
2. Smt. Dilbari filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. Notice was given to the respondent Harbhagwan who appeared through his counsel Shri R.S. Ahlawat before the Rent Controller. The proceedings were fixed for 5.3.1983 and the Rent Controller had directed to give direction to the petitioner Dilbari to appear in person on 5.3.1983, when the proceedings were taken up by the Rent Controller, original counsel who was engaged on behalf of Dilbari did not appear. Smt. Dilbari also did not appear. At about 3.30 p.m. the case was called. At that stage, Shri Rishi Parkash Advocate put appearance through memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner but the learned Rent Controller did not recognize the presence of Shri Rishi Parkash and dismissed the petition by stating as follows:-
“It is 3.30 p.m., the case is called again. Further await is uncalled. At this stage, Shri Rishi Parkash Advocate has appeared and filed memo of appearance but the present case was fixed for the appearance of the petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner was directed to intimate the petitioner to appear today. But it appears that the petitioner intentionally has not come present nor his counsel is present today. Moreover, the memo has not been duly authorised by counsel for the petitioner or by the petitioner. In view of this, the present petition is dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.1983, the present petition.
4. I have heard Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri D.S. Uppal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ashish Kapoor, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
5. Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. provides that where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and where only part of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder. As factual position stands neither the petitioner nor his original counsel appeared on 5.3.1983 but Shri Rishi Parkash Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner gave appearance. He simply violated directions of the Rent Controller when she did not appear in person before him. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller, could adjourn the case subject to costs or he should have proceeded under order 17 C.P.C. It was not proper on the part of the Rent Controller to dismiss the petition under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. when Rishi Parkash had filed memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner. At the most Rent Controller, could direct the counsel to file regular power of attorney on the next date of hearing. This has not been done in this case. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 5.3.1983 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The Revision Petition is hereby allowed. The main petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is restored to its original number and directions are given to the Rent Controller to proceed with the case according to law. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 8.9.1999.