C.R.No.3602 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3602 of 2010 Date of Order: 14.2.2011 Chander Parkash Shukla .....Petitioner Vs. Kanwal Jit Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Defendant-petitioner had filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned orders dated 6.5.2010 and 13.5.2010 passed by the learned trial Court whereby his defence was struck off for non-payment of the outstanding rent. It appears that this Court vide order dated 17.11.2010 had vacated the interim order dated 26.5.2010 whereby the pronouncement of the final order had been ordered to be stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that subsequently a Civil Miscellaneous bearing C.M.No.30100-CII of 2010 was filed seeking restoration of the interim stay order wherein following order was passed on 7.12.2010: “The applicant-petitioner is granted time to deposit the rent due to the respondent on or before the 1.2.2011. In case the applicant-petitioner deposits Rs.1 lakh within a period of 15 days from today and the remaining amount on 1.2.2011, the interim order vacated by this Court shall stand restored. C.R.No.3602 of 2010 #2# C.M stands disposed of.” At the time of hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited within 15 days, however, the remaining amount could not be deposited on 1.2.2011. He states that a C.M.No.3744 of 2011 has been moved in the present revision petition seeking extension of time beyond 1.2.2011 for payment of the remaining amount. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the learned trial Court has vide judgment dated 7.2.2011 has decreed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs ex parte. He states that in view of the same, present revision petition has become infructuous. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is in the process of making an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 7.2.2011, however, he does not dispute about the passing of the same. He prays for indulgence that in case the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2011 is set aside, the petitioner be permitted to seek his remedy against the impugned order by filing appropriate application/petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without adverting to the merit of the present revision petition, in view of the suit having been decreed, the present petition is disposed of as having become infructous. Needless to say that in case the aforesaid ex parte decree is set aside, the remedy, if any, available to the defendant-petitioner against the impugned order herein, in accordance with law, shall, if advised, be open for him to seek. February 14, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE