C.R. No.1014 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1014 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.08.2009 Kikar Singh .....Petitioner Versus Mewa Singh & Ors. ...Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against the order dismissing an application to set aside the order setting the respondent-tenant ex parte. Admittedly, on the day when the respondent-tenant was set ex parte on 14.06.2005, the Rent Controller did not proceed to grant an order of eviction. It directed the matter for ex parte evidence on 29.10.2005. The Court appears to have been closed after June and the re-opening date was 15.07.2005. The application was reported to have been filed on 19.07.2005. The Court below found that there was no valid justification for remaining ex parte and dismissed the application. It is against this order that a revision has been filed. 2. So long as an ex parte order was not passed directing eviction and the case had only been posted for evidence, an application being filed when the case pending to set aside the ex parte C.R. No.1014 of 2006 (O&M) -2- order, shall be taken in the nature of an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. Though the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applicable in rent proceedings, if the principle were to be applied, there is no period of limitation that fetters the jurisdiction of the Court to consider a plea for setting aside the ex parte order. It has been held in several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Courts shall be liberal in considering applications for setting aside ex parte order passed under Order 9 Rule 7. Indeed, even without setting aside such an order, it shall be possible for a court to permit a party who is set ex parte to participate in the proceedings from that stage and conclude the trial after giving an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses (Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal AIR 1955 SC 425). When the case itself had been posted for evidence only on 29.10.2005, the Rent Controller ought to have used its discretion to set aside the ex parte order and permitted the tenant to file his reply and prosecute the case. There has been a failure to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in it and the order of the Court below is liable to set aside. 3. The landlord, who had filed a petition in the year 2004 has been kept at bay for all these years only on account of the conduct of the tenant for not taking appropriate steps to enter appearance and file the written statement on the appointed date. The case has unnecessarily prolonged by its pendency before this Hon'ble Court and the landlord has also been forced to incur expenses in contesting the matter before the High Court. 4. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.1 or his counsel as a pre- C.R. No.1014 of 2006 (O&M) -3- condition to set aside the impugned order, on or before 02.09.2009, failing which the order passed already by the Court below shall be treated as having become final. For appearance of parties before the Court, it shall be on 14.09.2009 on which date the tenant shall also file his written statement. 5. Subject to above, the civil revision is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 20, 2009 Pankaj*