Civil Revision No. 877 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 877 of 2010 Date of decision : 23.2.2010 Shiva Chem (P) Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Janki Dass and others ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.A.K.Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. It is apparent from the record that a petition filed by the respondents-landlord for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises came to be decreed exparte, vide order dated 19.8.2006. The petitioner herein filed a plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on 29.5.2007. That plea came to be declined on 19.8.2008. A revision petition against that order came to be declined by this Court, vide order dated 19.8.2008. In the meantime, the petitioner- tenant had also filed an appeal against the impugned exparte ejectment decree on 29.9.2008. Alongwith that appeal, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay of 512 days in the filing thereof. The averment, made in the course thereof, was that the petitioner-tenant had been pursuing the legal remedy available to him in terms of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. from 29.5.2007 to 19.8.2008. Civil Revision No. 877 of 2010 -2- *** The plea was not accepted by the learned Appellate Authority which held that the petitioner-tenant could not have resorted to two simultaneous remedies available to him under the law. The petitioner-tenant is in revision against the order granted by the learned Appellate Authority. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that period for which the petitioner tenant had been pursuing legal remedy available to him in terms of provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. had to be excluded in counting the period of limitation. The plea raised is denuded of merit. While there can be no dispute with the proposition that it was open to the petitioner tenant either to resort to a plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. or a filing of an appeal against the exparte ejectment decree, it is equally clear that resort to the filing of an appeal, even while a plea filed by him under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was pending before the Civil Court, was inappropriate. This is only inference which can be safely culled out from a conjunctive perusal of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 23, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE