Civil Revision No.56 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.56 of 2010 Date of decision : 8.1.2010 Dharemender Singh ....Petitioner Versus Munish Gupta ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. S.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of (Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), exparte proceedings were ordered against the respondent- tenant. Thereafter, the latter filed a plea for setting aside thereof. The plea found favour with the learned Trial Court which allowed it vide order dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure P-1). The allowance of the plea came about subject to payment of costs quantified and indicated in the impugned order itself. The grievance of the petitioner-land lord is that though the learned Trial Court having itself recorded that “thus the fact and circumstances of the case clearly show the intention of petitioner is to delay the proceedings of the present petition”, it was illogical for the Court to have allowed the setting aside plea subject to payment of costs. It is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Trial Civil Revision No.56 of 2010 -2- **** Court did not frame issue on point of sufficiency or otherwise of the ground for the setting aside of the impugned exparte order. In the absence of issues, there obviously was no occasion for the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleas qua setting aside of impugned exparte order. Even if a party had been served through a parent, it could still prove to the satisfaction of the Court that there was sufficient ground for him to have absented from the proceedings. The law would, as far as possible, always prefer a judicial adjudication after contest. Technicalities must not be allowed to stand in the way of a fair trial i.e. an adjudication where both the parties are enabled to make their respective presentations and, then, have the mind of the Court. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to differ with the learned Trial Court. However, the grievance of the petitioner that allowance of the exparte setting aside would further delay the disposal can be taken care of by issuing a direction for time bound disposal of the ejectment petition. It may be noticed otherwise that the petition had been filed on 3.3.2009. It was not, thus, even one year old by the time the impugned order directing exparte proceedings came about. The petition shall stand disposed of in limine with a direction to the learned Rent Controller to dispose it of within six months with effect from the next date of hearing i.e. 11.1.2010 for which purpose it is already listed before that Court for filing of written statement. January 08,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE