IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4591 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.09.2009 Yadav Sood .....Petitioner versus Des Raj Aneja .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant whose application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 16.8.2005 has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide order dated 30.10.2007. Though it is stated by counsel for the respondent-landlord that the possession of the demised premises has already been taken over in execution of the ex-parte ejectment order, nevertheless, counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the revision petition still survives and requires consideration on merits. C.R. No.4591 of 2008 (O&M) 2 The respondent-landlord had filed two eviction petitions bearing RA No.4 of 2001 and RA No.75 of 2003 against the petitioner- tenant at different points of time. It appears that both the eviction petitions, in due course of time, were listed before the same ld. Presiding Officer. In the Eviction Petition No.4 of 2001, the petitioner-tenant did not appear allegedly despite service and consequently, an ex-parte eviction order dated 16.8.2005 was passed. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner-tenant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to recall the said ex-parte eviction order. It was averred in the application that R.A.No.4 of 2001 was earlier pending in the Court of Sh.S.S.Dhaliwal, Rent Controller, Ludhiana and was later on transferred to the Court of Ms.Ravi Inder Kaur for 19.3.2005 and then adjourned to 22.3.2005 so as to be taken up with the other eviction petition already fixed for that date. The petitioner claimed to have got an impression that both the cases were consolidated and continued under that impression as if both the cases are to be taken up together on future dates of hearing. The pending eviction petition, thereafter, was transferred to the Court of Ms.Gurdarshan Kaur, Rent Controller, Ludhiana on 14.10.2005. It is alleged that pursuant to the ex-parte eviction order when the petitioner received a notice in the execution proceedings on 7.12.2005, he came to know that ex-parte eviction order dated 16.8.2005 had already been passed. On this premise, the petitioner pleaded that his non-appearance before the Rent Controller on 16.5.2005 in R.A.No.4 of 2001 was un- intentional and bonafide. C.R. No.4591 of 2008 (O&M) 3 The respondent-landlord controverted the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner and took an objection that the application moved by the petitioner-tenant to set-aside the ex-parte eviction order is time barred. The crucial question that required consideration by the Rent Controller was as to whether the non-appearance of the petitioner in eviction petition No.4 of 2001 on 16.5.2005 was a bonafide omission and unintentional? The Rent Controller has disbelieved the petitioner's version after observing that during the cross-examination he could not deny the fact that the eviction petition was adjourned from 19.3.2005 to 15.5.2005 while the other case was fixed on 16.5.2005 for the landlord's evidence. The Rent Controller has further found that the two eviction petitions were never consolidated and there is no factual basis for the alleged impression gathered by the petitioner-tenant. The Rent Controller has further held that the ex-parte eviction order was passed on 16.8.2005, whereas, the application to recall the same was moved on 14.12.2005 which is beyond the limitation period of 30 days. Consequently, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order. It could not be seriously disputed that the Eviction Application No.4 was filed in the year 2001, whereas Eviction Application No.75 was filed in the year 2003. In such a situation, neither there was an order nor could both the petitions be consolidated as both the cases were at different stages of proceedings. The fact that the Eviction Application C.R. No.4591 of 2008 (O&M) 4 No.4 of 2001 was pending before a different Court (except for a small duration when it was assigned to the same Court where Eviction Application No.75 of 2003 was pending), also falsifies the petitioner's plea of having a bonafide impression regarding consolidation of both the cases. Apparently, the petitioner acted in a negligent manner and suffered the ex-parte eviction order. Since the plea taken by the petitioner to recall the ex-parte eviction order has remained unsubstantiated, no interference by this Court in the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 is called for in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 02-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE