Civil Revision No. 3008 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3008 of 2010 Date of decision : 21.5.2010 Bhura Singh ....Petitioner Versus Amrit Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondents herein filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner herein which came to be allowed on the basis of an exparte judgment, on 5.6.2007. Prior thereto, exparte proceedings had been ordered against the petitioner herein on 19.3.2007 because the petitioner did not turn up for appearance in the Court. The relevant part of the discussion is contained in the course of paras 8 & 9 of the impugned order which are extracted hereunder:- “8. In view of the above discussion and after careful perusal of the case file, this court is of the considered opinion that so far as the present application of the applicant/JD is concerned, it is quite merit less. It is not disputed by the applicant/ JD that the case on 19.3.2007 was fixed for filing of the writing statement with last opportunity and earlier to that day 4/5 adjournments were obtained by the applicant/JD for filing of the written Civil Revision No. 3008 of 2010 2 statement. From this conduct of the applicant/JD it becomes clear that he wanted to delay the proceedings of that petition, otherwise, he should have filed the written statement on the very first date of the hearing. On the case file, there is no medical record given by the applicant/JD even to show prima-facie that on 19.3.2007 he or his son was suffering from any disease. 9. Moreover, there is no question of sufferance of irreparable loss by the applicant/JD that by his own act and conduct is estopped from moving the present application. If on 19.3.2007, he was in incapacitated from attending the court due to any reason on 20.3.2007 or at the most 21.3.2007 he could have contacted his lawyers. He has not even explained why and under what circumstances he contacted his lawyer only a day prior to the filing of present application.” The petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending consideration at the hands of the learned Trial Court. The present plea has been filed only in order to assail the impugned order granted by learned Rent Controller, vide which the plea for interim stay had been negatived. I find the impugned order to be thoroughly appropriate and legally sustainable. The impugned ex-parte decree is valid till it is set aside in accordance with the law. There is no law which would require compulsive stay of proceedings the moment a plea under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is filed. The reasoning noticed for declining interim stay is well-reasoned and adequate to sustain the order Civil Revision No. 3008 of 2010 3 negativing the plea for interim stay. If the petitioner ultimately succeeds, restitution shall follow. There is no justification for staying the implementation of the ex-parte decree just because a plea for the setting aside thereof had been field. For the very reasons noticed by the learned Rent Controller, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 21, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE