IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3779 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 10th July, 2009. Gian Singh Petitioner through Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate Versus Rajinder Kumar & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the tenant against the ex-parte order of ejectment dated 11.12.1986 passed by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur, the order dated 01.12.2008 of the Rent Controller, Ferozepur dismissing his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as well as the judgment dated 9.4.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner's appeal against the afore- stated order of the Rent Controller, has been dismissed. Brief facts are that the respondent – landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in respect of the premises comprising two rooms and vacant site situated on Border Road, Ferozepur City. The tenants [including the petitioner] are stated to have received the summons ordinary as well as sent through registered covers. An ex-parte eviction order was accordingly passed by the Rent Controller on 11.12.1986. It appears that as soon as the landlord filed an execution application for taking possession, the petitioner – tenant instead of applying under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte order or filing an appeal against the said eviction order, filed a civil suit claiming himself to be owner in possession of the premises in question and challenged the eviction order dated 11.12.1986. His civil suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 9.10.2006 and the first appeal also met with the same fate on 14.2.2007. During the pendency of the afore-stated first appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 3.11.2006 for setting aside the ex- parte eviction order dated 11.12.1986. The petitioner took shelter behind Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act but the Rent Controller vide his order dated 1.12.2008 dismissed the application being hopelessly time barred. The petitioner preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by the District Judge, Ferozepur vide his impugned judgment dated 09.04.2009. The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether the period spent by the petitioner in a civil suit seeking declaration of his ownership and for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 11.12.1986 can be excluded while counting the limitation period for applying under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and as to whether the petitioner can be said to have been prosecuting the said litigation bona- fidely and with due diligence? The courts below have concurrently held that the civil suit for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 11.12.1986, was not maintainable at all. The petitioner, however, may be ill advised or otherwise, obdurately continued to prosecute the said suit and even after its dismissal on 9.10.2006, insisted and preferred an appeal. Therefore, it can not be said that the petitioner was pursuing the civil suit with due diligence and he can not now be permitted to take shelter behind Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The respondent – landlords are on caveat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. There can indeed be no doubt that the period spent in bona- fidely pursuing litigation with due diligence, though before a wrong Forum, per-se constitutes a valid ground for exclusion of the period spent in such litigation for the purposes of limitation to seek the right remedy. The legislative object behind Section 14 of the Act to absolve a litigant from the rigors of limitation to the extent of period he has been pursuing the litigation before a wrong Fora can not be stretched to include frivolous and vexatious litigation which can be safely termed as an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner in the instant case firstly refused to receive the ordinary as well as registered notice in the eviction petition. If he had any bona-fide reason to dispute the title of his landlords, he ought to have put in appearance and taken such a plea before the Rent Controller. In the execution proceedings also, the petitioner could presumably take objections regarding alleged defective title of the landlords. In any case, he had the remedies to appeal or to approach the Rent Controller under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on all possible legal and factual pleas. Instead, the petitioner filed a civil suit and as the record reveals, dragged it for years, causing unbearable harassment to the respondent – landlords. A litigation pursued with an intent to abuse the process of law, does not fall within the exception of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. No case to interfere with the impugned order is, therefore, made out. Dismissed. July 10, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE