CR No.4563 of 2008 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4563 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 14.10.2009 **** Chaman Lal and another . . . . Petitioners VS. Ram Saran Dass and Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.03.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala, dismissing the petitioner’s application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, as well as against the judgement dated 18.07.2008 of the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Ambala, upholding the above mentioned order of the Rent Controller, Ambala. 2) Shorn of the details, it may be noticed that the respondent- landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urband (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 asserting that the petitioners are tenants in the demised premises comprising a residential house bearing House Tax No.8992/5, Naya Bans, Ambala City and are liable to be evicted on more than one grounds. CR No.4563 of 2008 - 2 - 3) On receipt of notice, the petitioners appeared and engaged Sarvshri V.K. Verma and S.K. Sud, Advocates, who later on also filed the written statement on behalf of the petitioners. Thereafter, on 24th March, 1992, the above mentioned advocates made the following statement:- “Present: Sh.A.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. V.K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent Sh. V.K. Verma, Advocate has stated at bar that he and Sh.S.K. Sud Advocate has got no instructions on behalf of the respondents as they have taken the brief from them. They have withdrawn themselves as counsel in this case on behalf of the respondents. Let the case be kept pending and be called again after some time. Sd/- R.C. 24.3.1992 Ambala Present: Sh. A.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondent Waited sufficiently. It is already 1.50 p.m. Case called up several times, but none is appearing on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the respondents are proceeded against ex parte. Let the ex parte evidence of the petitioner be recorded. Sd/- R.C. 24.3.1992 Ambala” 4) It may, thus, be noticed that after calling the case for several times, the Rent Controller decided to proceed ex parte against the present petitioners. 5) On 22nd July, 1992, an ex parte eviction order was passed. The respondents applied for execution thereof. The petitioners on CR No.4563 of 2008 - 3 - 06.03.1998 allegedly came to know that an ex parte eviction order has already been passed against them and immediately applied under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside same. 6) The Rent Controller, Ambala framed an issue as to “whether there is sufficient ground to set aside the ex parte order dated 22nd July, 1992 ?” 7) After taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were duly served; they had engaged Sarvshri S.K. Sud and V.K. Verma, Advocates; filed the written statement coupled with the overwhelming evidence including depositions made by Sarvshri S.K. Sud and Rajinder Singh, Advocates, that the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there was no valid ground to set aside the ex parte eviction order. 8) The petitioners went in appeal which has also met with the same fate. The Appellate Authority has observed that:- “……………Firstly, there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for giving a fresh notice to the party, which is already represented by Advocate and who on any particular date, pleads no instruction. Secondly, there is sufficient evidence on the record from where it can be inferred that Shri S.K. Sud, Advocate was continuously representing the appellants till as late as 1994. It can, thus, not be presumed that counsel would not have given any information regarding pleading no instruction in the CR No.4563 of 2008 - 4 - present case. Quite surprisingly, when Shri S.K. Sud advocate put in his appearance in the witness box, no suggestion to this effect was give to him by counsel for appellants. Even affidavit furnished by Chaman Lal, one of the appellants, has also been perused, wherein there is no mention as to why he could not appear in the Court. Admittedly, the case was pending since 1985 and appellants were actively contesting the same, it appears strange to common sense that suddenly they forgot about the pendency of the case. This selective amnesia raises a question mark on the bona fide of the appellants… …….” 9) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, at some length and perused the impugned orders. 10) The petitioners’ contention that the counsel representing them having withdrawn their instructions, the Rent Controller ought to have issued fresh notice to them, has no factual or legal basis. The eviction application was filed in the year 1985 and the petitioners were vehemently contesting the same. If they had withdrawn instructions from their counsel, it was their duty to appear in Court either in person or through another counsel. The fact remains that on 24th March 1992, the petitioners made no effort to find out the fate of the eviction petition, the pendency of which was admittedly in their best knowledge. It was only after the eviction order had been passed on 06.03.1998 CR No.4563 of 2008 - 5 - that they woke up and moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. 11) In these circumstances, no ground to interfere with the findings returned by the Courts below is made out. 12)Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 14.10.2009 shonkar