CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:22.03.2011. Ram Pal ...Petitioner Versus Deepak Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which two directions have been sought; i) to direct the Rent Controller to decide the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for restoration and the application for bringing on record the legal representatives within a specified time and ii) to direct the Rent Controller to record the exact proceedings in zimni orders as they take place in the Court. The petitioner has alleged that his father had filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] against the respondent on the grounds of non-payment of rent since November 2006 for his own and the use and occupation of his son. During the pendency of the eviction petition, father of the petitioner expired on 24.09.2007 leaving behind his wife and his two sons including the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application to the Rent Controller on 27.11.2007 in order to bring them on record as legal representatives of his father. In this regard, the following zimni CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ****** order was passed on 05.10.2007 by the Rent Controller: - “Present: Counsel for the parties. ***** Counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner has died. Now to come for filing the proper application on 27.11.2007. Sd/- RC/05.10.2007.” On 27.11.2007, the following order was passed by the Rent Controller: - “Present: Counsel for the parties. ***** An application for bringing the LRs filed. Copy given. Now case is adjourned for the reply and consideration on 11.02.2008. Sd/- RC/27.11.2007.” On 11.02.2008 and 05.04.2008, following two orders were passed by the Rent Controller: - “Present: Sh. Sanjay Tangri, Adv. for the plaintiffs. Sh. PK Kukereja, Adv. for the defendant. ***** Consideration not effected. Adjournment requested. Heard. Allowed. Now case is adjourned to 05.04.2008 for consideration. Sd/- RC/11.02.2008.” “Present: Sh. Sanjay Tangri, Adv. for the plaintiff/petitioner. Sh. PK Kukeraja, Adv. for the defendant/respondent. ***** Consideration not effected. Adjournment requested. Heard. Allowed. Now to come up on 17.07.2008 for consideration. Sd/- RC/05.04.2008.” CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) -3- ****** On 17.07.2008, reply to the application for brining on record the legal representatives was filed and the case was adjourned to 11.09.2008 for consideration of the application. On 11.09.2008, the following order was passed by the Rent Controller: - “Present: Counsel for the parties. ***** On request, adjourned to 03.10.2008 for consideration on application for bringing the LRs of plaintiff on record. Sd/- RC/11.09.2008.” On 03.10.2008, again the following order was passed by the Rent Controller: - “Present: Counsel for the parties. ***** On request, adjourned to 04.12.2008 for consideration on application for bringing the LRs of plaintiff on record. Sd/- CJ(JD)/03.10.2008.” On 04.12.2008, the case was adjourned to 20.02.2009 and on that date, the following order was passed: - “Present: Sh. Sanjay Tangri, Cl. for plaintiff. Sh. P.K.Kukreja, counsel for defendant. ***** On request, adjourned to 10.03.2009 for consideration on application for bringing the LRs of plaintiff on record. Sd/- CJ(JD)/20.02.09” However, the main eviction petition was dismissed in default on 10.04.2009. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC on 04.05.2009 for restoration of the eviction petition, in which notice was issued on 16.05.2009 for 02.09.2009 and, thereafter, the following orders were passed: - CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) -4- ****** “Present: Sh. Sanjay Tangri, Cl. for applicant. ***** Notice sent to opposite party received back unserved. Let fresh notice to the opposite party be again issued for 28.10.2009. Dasti be also given, if desired. Meanwhile, file be summoned from the record room for date fixed. Sd/- RC/02.09.2009.” “Present: Sh. Sanjay Tangri, Cl. for applicant. Sh. P.K.Kukreja, Cl. for respondent. ***** Memo of appearance filed on behalf of the respondent. On request, now the case is adjourned to 14.12.2009 for filing reply. File not received from the record room. Same be summoned again for the date fixed. Sd/- RC/28.10.2009.” “Present: Counsel for the parties. ***** File not received from the record room. Same be summoned again for 09.02.2010. Reply to restoration application not filed. Same be filed on or before the next date. Sd/- RC/14.12.2009.” “Present: Cl. for parties. ***** Reply to restoration application not filed. The case is adjourned to 04.03.2010 for filing reply to restoration application. It shall be last opportunity. File be also summoned from record room. Sd/- RC/09.02.2010.” CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) -5- ****** “Present: Cl. for parties. ***** Reply to restoration application not filed. On request, the case is adjourned to 09.04.2010 for filing reply to restoration application. Last opportunity granted. File be also summoned from record room. Sd/- RC/04.03.2010.” “Present: Cl. for parties. ***** Original file received and attached. Now to come up on 13.05.2010 for filing reply to restoration application. Sd/- RC/09.04.2010.” “Present: Counsel for parties. ***** Reply not filed. The case is adjourned to 21.09.2010 for filing reply to restoration application consideration shall also be effected on that date. This shall be last opportunity. Sd/- S.K.Sharma/13.05.10.” “Present: As above. ***** Reply filed. Now to come up on 12.10.2010 for consideration. Sd/- CJ(JD)/21.09.2010.” “Present: Counsel for the parties. ***** On request, case is adjourned to 04.12.2010 for consideration. Sd/- CJ(JD)/12.10.2010.” CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) -6- ****** “Present: As above. ***** On request, case is adjourned to 17.02.2011 for consideration. Sd/- CJ(JD)/04.12.2010.” In this background, the present revision petition has been filed and directions have been sought. One of the primary grievances of the petitioner is that the Rent Controller is not recording the correct zimni orders which do not reflect the exact Court proceedings taking place on a particular date. For example, he has submitted that it is not clear from the orders as on whose request the case was adjourned on 12.10.2010 and 04.12.2010. The aforesaid orders have already been reproduced here-in-above. He has submitted that he has never requested for an adjournment, but from these orders it is not clear whether it is adjourned on his behalf or on behalf of the respondent. On this argument, this Court, vide order dated 27.01.2011, asked for the comments of the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh about his way of recording the zimni order. The said order is reproduced as under: - “The petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to direct the Court of Shri S.K.Sharma, Rent Controller, Chandigarh to record exact proceedings in the zimni orders. It is submitted that zimni orders are not being recorded by the Rent Controller in terms of the proceedings which take place in the Court. In this regard, he has pointed out one order, which reads as under: - “Present: As above. On request, case is adjourned to 17.02.2011 for consideration. Sd/- CJ(JD)/4.12.10.” It is submitted by the petitioner that it is not clear from the aforesaid order as to who had appeared for the parties and on whose request the case is CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) -7- ****** adjourned. It is alleged that there is a total casualness on the part of the Rent Controller in recording the court proceedings. Thus, let the comments of Shri S.K.Sharma, Rent Controller, Chandigarh be sought about his way of recording zimni orders. A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Chandigarh for compliance. Adjourned to 15.02.2011. Registry is directed to send the record back to the learned Rent Controller forthwith.” Shri S.K.Sharma, Rent Controller, Chandigarh has submitted his comments, in which he has urged that only two orders dated 12.10.2010 and 04.12.2010 were passed by him and he always used to dictate/record the zimni orders according to the proceedings which takes place in the Court. For demonstration, he has attached some zimni orders as well with his comments. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record from which I have found that the concern shown by the petitioner in respect of not recording the exact proceedings in the zimni orders is not ill- founded. This Court has experienced that the Courts below are not sensitive towards the recording of zimni orders which has a great sanctity in the judicial proceedings. From the zimni orders, it can be ascertained as to what has transpired before the Court on a particular date. In the present case, the zimni orders have been recorded by the learned Rent Controller in a casual manner. Even though Shri S.K.Sharma, Rent Controller, Chandigarh has alleged that he has only recorded two orders dated 12.10.2010 and 04.12.2010 and has alleged that he has been dictating it in accordance with the proceedings which takes place in the Court, yet I am of the view that even these two orders did not depict the correct position. For example, it is not clear on whose request the case was adjourned by the Court. The litigation is increasing day by day and the higher Courts are being unnecessarily burdened only because of the petty errors committed by the subordinate Courts. Had the zimni orders been correctly recorded by the Rent Controller, the petitioner would not have a cause to come to this Court for seeking a direction, which is otherwise a solemn duty of the Court. CR No.168 of 2011 (O&M) -8- ****** Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and specially a direction which has been sought in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby direct not only the Rent Controller in the present case but also all the subordinate Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh to record correct zimni orders so that this kind of direction may not be asked for in future by the litigants. Correct recording of the zimni orders lends transparency in the judicial process and are very material. Reverting back to the other direction prayed for by the petitioner in this revision petition for deciding the application for restoration, to my mind, since the petitioner is the landlord, therefore, he is always anxious for early decision of his case, whereas in the present case it is only the application for restoration which is lingering on from 04.05.2009 and more than 1- ½ years has already expired giving unnecessary advantage to the tenant to remain in possession. Hence, the direction is accordingly issued to the Rent Controller to decide the application for restoration within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Hence, the revision petition is disposed of with aforesaid direction. March 22, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE