CR No. 5422 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5422 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.08.2010 Kamla Kaushik .......... Petitioner Versus Amarjit Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. K.L. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) Though this revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that it may be treated to be one under the Rent Act. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.8.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide which application moved by the respondent for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, stands allowed. The petitioner moved an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act ( as extended to urban area, Chandigarh) for eviction of the respondent / tenant. The case was fixed for 5.4.2010. The case was adjourned to 12.4.2010, but the counsel for the respondent / tenant noted the date as 21.4.2010. It was on account of the wrong date noted by the CR No. 5422 of 2010 -2- ***** learned counsel for the respondent / tenant, neither the respondent / tenant nor his counsel appeared in the Court on 12.4.2010. The case adjourned to 17.4.2010, and the tenant, was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte, on account of his non-appearance. The case of the tenant / respondent was, that on 21.4.2010, when he did not find the case in the cause list, he after enquiry, inspected the record, and came to know, the fact , that date was wrongly noted by the learned counsel for the respondent / tenant as 21.4.2010 instead of 12.4.2010. The respondent / tenant thereafter immediately moved an application, on 28.4.2010, for setting aside the ex parte order. The application was opposed by the petitioner, on the ground, that the petitioner / landlady, is old lady and the respondent / tenant, in order to harass her, intentionally did not appear on the date fixed. This was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller. It is settled law, that no party should be allowed to suffer for the fault of the counsel. The learned counsel for the respondent / tenant had taken a positive stand, that he wrongly noted the date 21.4.2010, instead of 12.4.2010. The very fact was prima facie correct, as the application was moved on 28.4.2010 itself, for setting aside the ex parte order. There was no reason to disbelieve the ground taken by the respondent / tenant. In this Court the learned counsel for the petitioner CR No. 5422 of 2010 -3- ***** contended, that the respondent / tenant has been allotted Government accommodation, therefore, he was interested to prolong the litigation. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is noticed, to be rejected on two grounds. Firstly, no such plea finds mentioned in the impugned order. Secondly, this ground can not be a ground, to deny the relief, of setting aside of ex parte order, when it was proved, that absence of the respondent / tenant, was not intentional but for the reasons beyond his control. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 27.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE