Civil Revision No. 2488 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2488 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:03 .02.2009 Rajinder Lal .............. Petitioner Vs. Gopal Krishan .............Respondent Present: Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate with Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The application for permission to leave to defend was dismissed on the ground that the application did not disclose any material as possible defence. The contention raised by the tenant was that the landlord had earlier filed an application on the same ground under Section 13-A and it was dismissed as not pressed. The subsequent application filed again under Section 13-A, according to the tenant, constituted res judicata. There had been other contentions, as well, but the Rent Controller found that there was no requirement to grant leave to defend the case. The Rent Controller adverted to the issue whether the landlord was a Government servant to claim the privileges of Section 13-A. 2. It is not denied that the landlord had earlier filed an application in respect to the very same subject matter against the very same tenant and he earlier withdrew his previous eviction petition. The effect of withdrawal of Civil Revision No. 2488 of 2005 (O&M) -2- application without obtaining permission to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action would be governed by the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 although the decision may not constitute a bar under Section 11 C.P.C. The pleadings have not been artistically taken up but it is a moot point whether the withdrawal of the previous application without obtaining permission from the Court would constitute an abandonment of the action or not. It is definitely a matter that requires the legal scrutiny and there is a scope for the defence being examined in all its legal ramifications. 3. The impugned order is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. 4. Any expression regarding the nature of pleadings or otherwise made in this order shall not be taken to be conclusive but they are merely expressed to point out that there is a semblance of defence that would merit consideration by granting leave to defend. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 03 , 2009 Pankaj*