CR No.214 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. * * * CR No.214 of 2011 Decided on 23.5.2011 Naresh Kumar -- Petitioner vs. Satnam Singh and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Puneet Jindal,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, by which stay application filed by the petitioner was declined. In brief, landlord had filed the eviction petition which was dismissed on 25.4.2008. Thereafter, he filed the statutory appeal under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short,'the Act') and simultaneously filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for correction in the order of dismissal dated 25.4.2008. The said application was filed on 23.5.2008, whereas the appeal was filed on 20.5.2008. The application filed CR No.214 of 2011 2 under Section 151 of CPC was decided on 15.1.2009, whereas in appeal, learned counsel who had been appearing before the Rent Controller had put in appearance and continued to appear for a quite long time. But eventually, on 07.12.2009, he chose not to appear and, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte and the appeal was allowed on 15.12.2009 by granting ex-parte eviction order to the landlord. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC alongwith an application for stay before the learned Appellate Authority. On the pleadings, issues were framed on 27.9.2010 to the following effect:- 1. Whether the exparte order dated 7.12.2009 is liable to be set aside ? OPP 2. Whether the application is time bound ? OPR 3. Whether the appeal Naresh Kumar Versus Satnam Singh was never pending or decided by this Court ? OPR 4. Relief: Thereafter, the case was adjourned for recording the applicant's witnesses on 1.12.2010. On that date the learned Appellate Authority recorded the following order:- “No PW is present. To come up on 9.12.2010 for PWs and consideration on stay application”. Ultimately, while parties were yet to lead their evidence, the learned Appellate Authority rejected the application of stay ,inter alia, on the ground that the tenant had knowledge of the proceedings which were being carried out before it in appeal as his counsel CR No.214 of 2011 3 Mr.V.K.Sareen, had appeared on his behalf. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited Rampur and others (1982) 3 Supreme Court Cases 484 ; a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Andil Engineering Co., Faridabad Vs. Jag Mohan Lal Ahuja 1989 S.L.J.674 and also a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunita Khanna Vs. Shri B.L Gupta & another (2001-2) P.L.R. Delhi Section 9. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of Order 41 Rule 14 CPC and the Punjab and Haryana High Court Case Flow Management Rules 2007, it was suffice to issue notice to the counsel who appeared for the respondent in the trial Court. Thereafter, vide letter dated 21.5.2008 written by Sh.Naresh K.Aggarwal,Advocate, Jalandhar, Sh.V.K.Sareen,Advocate was informed about the fate of the appeal filed by the landlord before the learned Appellate Authority which was pending for 24.5.2009 before Sh. B.K.Mehta, learned Appellate Authority. Learned counsel further submits that when the appeal was admitted, the zimni order was signed by Mr.V.K.Sareen,Advocate and he continued to appear. Learned counsel further submitted that when the application filed under Section 151 of CPC was decided on 15.1.2009, the Court had recorded that “as the file which has been summoned from the CR No.214 of 2011 4 Appellate Authority is ordered to be sent back to the Court of Sh. B.K. Mehta,learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar and the papers of present application are ordered to be consigned to the record room”. Learned counsel further submitted that if the order was sent back to the Appellate Court in the presence of Sh.V.K.Sareen, Advocate, who had been appearing through out on behalf of the tenant and had no knowledge of the eviction petition but in the application which is filed by the landlord under Section 151 of CPC as well as in the application filed by the tenant under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, he was very much in the knowledge of the proceedings and if his Advocate had chosen not to appear on the fateful day, he is to be blamed and not the landlord. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned Appellate Authority has pre judged the issue of deciding the eviction petition. The tenant was duly served on the date when his Advocate had chosen not to appear because the issues have been framed on the pleadings of the parties and the parties are yet to lead their evidence and if this course is adopted by the learned Appellate Authority, then it should not have framed the issues and should have decided the application for stay first and then should have decided the main appeal which has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the eviction order was passed on 15.12.2009 and because of the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, the tenant is enjoying the stay. The application under Section 9 Rule 13 of CPC is a ploy to prolong CR No.214 of 2011 5 the matter which is causing great hardship to the landlord. He states that an appropriate direction may be given to the learned Appellate Authority to decide the application in a time bound manner. I find the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is quite convincing and for that matter, the learned Appellate Authority, is directed to decide the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC as soon as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date already fixed before it by giving short adjournments to the parties to lead their respective evidence. 23.5.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge