IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2058 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 05, 2010 Surinder Singh. …Petitioner Versus D.P. Kalra & Sons HUF. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Ashish Duggal, Advocate, for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Singhal, Advocate for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The tenant (petitioner herein) applied for setting aside the exparte ejectment order dated 17.12.2002. The averment, made in the course thereof, was that the petitioner herein inadvertently missed out this case from his mind in view of the fact that there were a number of cases which were pending between the parties and the petitioner herein remained under the impression that he had already instructed the learned counsel to enter appearance on his behalf in this case as well. It was on 24.07.2003 that the grant of the exparte ejectment order came to be noticed by the petitioner herein when the landlord (respondent herein) came over to the C.R. No. 2058 of 2008 tenanted premises and informed him that the order aforementioned had been granted ex-parte against him, that a warrant of possession had also been got issued and further that the former shall have to vacate the tenanted premises in very near future. It was thereafter only that the petitioner herein contacted his counsel and was informed about the grant of exparte ejectment order dated 17.12.2002. The plea for setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings was contested on behalf of the respondent herein on an averment that the refrain on the part of the petitioner herein from entering appearance in the ejectment proceedings was conscious, particularly because personal service had been effected upon him. The learned Trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties and non-suited the petitioner herein on plea of setting aside of the impugned ex-parte ejectment order, by observing that there was no scope for confusion in the mind of the petitioner herein in view of the fact that the other litigations pending between the parties were not even averred to be fixed for that very date. The view obtained by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority. The learned counsel, appearing onbehalf of the petitioner, argues that the impugned finding deserves invalidation for the simple reason that the possibility of the petitioner having missed out this case inadvertently could not 2 C.R. No. 2058 of 2008 be ruled out, particularly because the petitioner herein had tendered rent in all the other pending cases. The plea raised is devoid of force. The present is not a case where the petitioner herein had been proceeded exparte on the basis of substituted service. The learned counsel for the petitioner is, in fact, not in a position to deny that the petitioner herein had been personally served for appearance. It would require pertinent notice, in the context, that the impugned exparte ejectment order came to be granted on 17.12.2002. However, it was only on 26.07.2003 that the plea under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC came to be filed. The law would relish a judicial adjudication after contest. At the same time, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that there are parties who may like to take the law for a ride, by first allowing the exparte orders to be granted and, then, to apply for setting aside thereof. If there was even an iota of truth in the averment made by the petitioner in the course of the impugned application, there is no reason why he would not have contacted his counsel on 24.07.2003 itself. Further, it was for the petitioner herein to examine the learned counsel he contacted in support of the averment that the petitioner herein had contacted him in the context of the present case on the indicated date. Even in the course of the impugned application, it is not the averment that any Bailiff came over to the tenanted premises on 24.07.2003. Though a party which has been averred to have obtained an ejectment order against 3 C.R. No. 2058 of 2008 the tenant would be too inclined to execute it at the earliest and obtain the possession of the tenanted premises, there is no reason why the respondent herein would have gone over all alone to the tenanted premises to “inform” the petitioner herein of the grant of exparte ejectment order. That is the precise plea in the course of the impugned application. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I do not find anything on record to warrant interference with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. February 05, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4