Civil Revision No.5328 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5328 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: July 16, 2009. Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Tilak Raj & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1 & 2. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the ex-parte eviction order dated 18.5.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, Ajnala, as well as the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar dismissing the petitioner's appeal, being barred by limitation, against the above mentioned eviction order. The petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises comprising a shop allegedly at the monthly rent of Rs.175/- per month. As per the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner though put in appearance but subsequently remained absented from the proceedings and consequently, the Civil Revision No.5328 of 2007 -: 2 :- ex-parte eviction order was passed against him. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 85 days in filing of the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has taken a plea that he had wrongly noted down the date of hearing as 8.8.2005 and it was only on 5.8.2005 when he went to the office of his Counsel that he came to know about the ex-parte eviction order dated 18.5.2005. On this premise, he sought condonation of delay of 85 days in filing of the appeal. The Appellate Authority, however, has dismissed the said application, giving rise to this revision petition. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing of the appeal was caused for bona fide reasons and is not intentional. He urges that it would have been more appropriate for the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits instead of rejecting the same on a hyper-technical ground, more so when the respondent can be suitably compensated with costs. The record reveals that the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 29.4.2005 and thereafter the eviction order was passed on 18.5.2005 by the Rent Controller. The petitioner claims to have wrongly noted down the date of hearing as 8.8.2005 and well in advance of the presumed date, he visited the office of his Counsel on 5.8.2005 for watching the proceedings and then only he came to know about the ex-parte eviction order. The question as to whether or not the petitioner had noted down the wrong date of hearing, is to be examined by the Appellate Authority on merits, Civil Revision No.5328 of 2007 -: 3 :- however, this plea itself ought to have prompted the learned Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits instead of rejecting the same being barred by limitation. For the reasons recorded afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed in part; the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Additional District Judge, Amritsar is set aside and while allowing the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is directed that the first appeal against the ex-parte eviction order dated 29.4.2005 and 18.5.2005 be decided on merits. the Appellate Authority shall endeavour to decide the appeal at the earliest and preferably within four months. The petitioner, however, shall be liable to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-landlord which shall be paid by him on the first date of hearing before the Appellate Authority. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 24.8.2009. Dasti. July 16, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge