IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 204 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.11.2011 M/s. G.D. Khanna …Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd.& others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the orders dated 28.07.2009, Annexure P-4, whereby the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to lead any evidence, order dated 30.11.2009, Annexure P-5, whereby the application for restoration filed by the respondent was allowed without giving any reasons and without first deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation act. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2010, Annexure P-6, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner for recalling the earlier two orders had been rejected. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents are occupying certain premises known as 6 Commercial Building, The Mall, Shimla. This building is owned by the H.P. State Cooperative Bank. The H.P. State Cooperative Bank, after issuing notice, filed a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, for eviction of the respondents from the aforesaid premises. 3. The application was filed on 18.09.1999 and it is, indeed, a shocking and appalling state of affairs that this petition has not been decided though more than 13 years have elapsed. The Public Premises Act has been made applicable to Government and other buildings owned by Government, Corporations, Societies etc., with the purpose of ensuring that the eviction proceedings take the minimum possible time. But the records of the present case show that for one reason or the other, the Collector has been adjourning the case. 4. It is more surprising to note that though the building is situated at a distance of less than 200 mts. from the Collectorate Office, the petitioner and the proforma respondents could not be served for years on end. Even if after they were served, the matter would be adjourned just on the asking. On some dates, the Collector was on leave and thereafter, neither the respondents nor their counsel would appear leading to fresh notices being issued to the respondents. 5. The matter was finally dismissed in default on 10.09.2007 and an application for restoration of the petition as well -: 3 :- as for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application was filed. Issues were framed only in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and for reasons best known to the Collector, he only proceeded with that application and not with the application for restoration, but finally he passed an order not only condoning the delay but also restoring the petition that too without giving any opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner sought review of the said orders, which has been rejected. 6. The impugned orders are totally illegal and have to be set aside, since the case was fixed only for purpose for deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence, but despite that fact not only was the delay condoned, but the application for restoration was also disposed of. 7. Keeping in view the above facts, the petition is allowed and the orders dated 28.07.2009, Annexure P-4; 30.11.2009, Annexure P-5; and 12.03.2010, Annexure P-6, are set aside. The Collector shall now proceed to re-decide the applications for restoration of the petition and for condonation of delay in moving the restoration application. Both the applications shall be heard and decided simultaneously. Respondents No. 2 and 3, who are represented by Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, may, if they so choose, contest the petition, since they have notice of the same. In case, they choose not to appear before the Collector on the date now to -: 4 :- be fixed by this Court, then ex-parte proceedings against them will not be set aside thereafter. 8. The parties or their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector on 23rd November, 2011. The Collector shall hear the matter on day to day basis. He shall give the Bank an opportunity to lead evidence both on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as on the restoration application. He need not frame issues and he shall give two opportunities to the petitioner and / or the proforma respondents, if they choose to appear, to lead their evidence to the contrary. The Collector is directed to ensure that both the applications are disposed of by 31st December, 2011. In case, the Collector allows the application and restores the main petition, he shall ensure that the main petition itself is disposed of latest by 30th April, 2012. In case, the applications are allowed and the petitioner files any appeal against the said order, the Appellate Authority is directed to ensure that the appeal is disposed of within 45 days of its filing. In no event should the case prolong beyond 30th June, 2012. 9. I have not purposely gone into the very serious allegations which have been levelled against the Presiding Officer by both the parties regarding the manner in which the proceedings were conducted on day to day basis. The allegation is that the order sheets do not reflect the correct status of the case. It is, therefore, directed that the Collector shall obtain the signatures of the parties or their counsel on each order sheet. -: 5 :- 10. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge November 2, 2011 (rajni)