CR No.3342 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3342 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:19.05.2011. Dhanwinderjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Amrik Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar by which application filed by the tenant for restoration of his appeal, which was dismissed in default on 08.11.2007, has been declined. In brief, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar on 12.10.2006 against which the tenant filed Rent Appeal No.318 of 03.11.2006 in which he stopped appearing w.e.f. 01.11.2007 and as such it was dismissed in terms of Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”]. The tenant then filed application, i.e. Civil Misc. Application No.11 of 2010 on 18.01.2010 for restoration of appeal on the ground that he had engaged Shri Mayank Joshi, Advocate, who had stopped appearing without intimating him and he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal when warrants of possession were issued and police help was provided to the landlord for taking possession. These averments were denied by the landlord. In view thereof, on 08.03.2010, two issues were framed and the parties led their respective evidence. The learned Appellate Authority did not accept the explanation given by the tenant CR No.3342 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ***** that his Advocate was at fault in not intimating him about the proceedings after his dis-appearance on 01.11.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has failed to make out a case in order to persuade this Court to take a view contrary to the view taken by the learned Appellate Authority nor he could disclose as to why he did not take any action against Shri Mayank Joshi, Advocate, who allegedly stopped appearing in his case, either before the Bar Association to which he is a member or before the Bar Council who had granted him the license to practice because apparently the non-appearance of an advocate without any reason causing loss to his client would be a prima facie case of professional misconduct. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. May 19, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge