C.R. No.4695 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.4695 of 2003 Date of Decision: 3.3.2008 Prem Sagar .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Ankush Finishers and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is to an order dated 11.8.2003 passed by the learned trial Court, setting aside an ex-parte order of ejectment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court, committed a serious error of jurisdiction in setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order. The rent petition was filed in the year 1987 and the ex- parte order of ejectment was passed on 29.10.1997. The respondents, filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order on 21.11.1997, asserting that they had not been served. It is submitted that these assertions were false as the respondents were served by affixation at the tenanted premises. The findings returned by the learned trial Court to the contrary are incorrect. It is further argued that though the final order was passed on 29.10.1997, the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte in the year 1987. The learned trial Court, therefore, has set aside an order after 10 years without the respondents establishing sufficient cause for this delay. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the C.R. No.4695 of 2003 2 impugned order. The learned trial Court, set aside the ex-parte proceedings, as also the ex-parte order of ejectment by returning a positive finding that the respondents were not served. The petitioner has failed to establish that these findings of fact are in any manner incorrect. The learned trial Court has held that the addresses indicated in the petition were incomplete. Respondent no.3 was described as Ram Nath Mehra, whereas his true name is Ram Nath Kapoor. The respondent firms were not impleaded through their correct partners. The tenanted premises bear Municipal No.49, whereas the address indicated in the petition does not bear any such number. A significant fact relied upon by the trial Court is that the Process Server was accompanied by the petitioner. I find no error of jurisdiction or of law in the impugned order. As the trial Court has recorded its satisfaction as to the facts narrated herein before, it did not commit any error in setting aside the ex-parte proceedings as also the ex-parte order of ejectment. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, as the ejectment petition is pending since the year 1987, it will be necessary to direct the Rent Controller to decide the ejectment petition, within a period of six months from the next date of hearing. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 8.4.2008. 3.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE