IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9267/2007 Narendra Kumar Jain Vs. J.D.A. And Ors. 04.7.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Ashok Bansal, for the petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, for the respondent. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the J.D.A. Tribunal dated 19.3.2007 by which the contempt application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Tribunal and the order dated 26.9.2007 (Annexure-9) by which the application submitted by the petitioner for review of the order dated 19.3.2007 was dismissed. The petitioner preferred the reference application before the learned J.D.A. Tribunal which came to be decided vide judgment dated 27.7.2004 and the reference application was allowed with the direction to the respondent J.D.A. to decide the application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the direction given by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society in the arbitrator award dated 6.8.2003 It appears that though the J.D.A. was represented and participated in the reference proceedings before the learned Tribunal the Co- operative Housing Society respondent No.2 remained exparte and therefore the respondent No.2 Housing Society herein, filed an application under order 9 rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 27.7.2004 before the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal having heard the parties and considered the application filed by the Co- operative Housing Society conditionally allowed the same vide its order dated 17.5.2005 subject to the payment of costs of Rs.200/- each. The case of the petitioner was that the Co-operative Society whose application for setting aside the order dated 27.7.2004 had been allowed by the learned Tribunal had failed to comply with the above condition of the payment within 15 days and therefore the conditional order which was passed by the learned Tribunal dated 17.5.2005 for setting aside the judgment dated 27.7.2004 became in- operative. Consequently the Tribunal vide order dated 31.5.2006 dismissed the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the order dated 27.7.2004 the respondent J.D.A. was required to comply with the directions contained in the said judgment dated 27.7.2004 allowing the reference application and since the respondent J.D.A. had failed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 27.7.2004, the petitioner prayed that the respondent J.D.A. And its officials be prosecuted for contempt of court. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 19.3.2007 (Annexure-7) dismissed not only application of the petitioner but also awarded cost of RS.1,000/- to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal the petitioner preferred a review petition before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the same vide order dated 26.9.2007 (Annexure-9). It is the orders (Annexure-7) dated 19.3.2007 and (Annexure-9) dated 26.9.2007 which are the subject matter of challenge before the court in writ jurisdiction. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the order allowing the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. dated 17.5.2005 was the conditional order having been passed on the application submitted by the Co-operative Housing Society for setting aside the order allowing the reference application and on the conditions not having been fulfilled the order automatical stood revoked and subsequently vide order dated 31.5.2006 the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Tribunal as a result the order of the Tribunal dated 27.7.2004 remained intact. It is surprising that the learned Tribunal on being moved by the petitioner in view of the above facts for issuance of the process of contempt against the officers of the J.D.A. not only dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner but also imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/- holding that the order dated 27.7.2004 had been set aside vide order dated 17.5.2005 contrary to the order of the Tribunal itself which had dismissed the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. vide order dated 31.5.2006 (Annexure-6) on account of non compliance conditions imposed vide order dated 17.5.2005. In the order Annexure-7 the Tribunal surprisingly has recorded in para 3, 4 and 5 that the Tribunal had vide order dated 17.5.2005 had set aside its order dated 27.7.2004 ignoring the order dated 31.5.2006. The petitioner moved the review petition for bringing to the notice of the Tribunal the fact regarding order dated 31.5.2006 but the learned Tribunal has dismissed the review application stating that there is no ground for review. The above facts clearly go to show that while passing the order dated 19.3.2007 the learned Tribunal not only committed an error in holding that the order dated 27.7.2004 had been set aside vide order dated 17.5.2005 which was not correct in view of the the order of the learned Tribunal dated 31.5.2006 it was expected that when this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal while hearing the review petition the said order dated 19.3.2007 ought to have been reviewed and corrected by the learned Tribunal instead it imposed cost on the petitioner which points to the careless attitude of the learned Tribunal. There being a factual error in the order of the learned Tribunal, in the fact that the order dated 27.7.2004 had been set aside vide order dated 17.5.2005 where as in fact vide order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal itself the application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. had been dismissed and the respondent J.D.A. was thus required to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 27.7.2004 and t he petitioner was justified in moving an application before the learned Tribunal for the non compliance of the order, and the directions contained in the order dated 27.7.2004. Accordingly I am inclined to accept this writ petition and set aside the orders dated 19.3.2007 (Annexure-7) and order dated 26.9.2007 (Annexure-9). In the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is directed that since nearly four years have passed and the J.D.A. has not complied with the directions contained in the order of the Tribunal, I deem it proper to grant six weeks time to the J.D.A. for compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The application No.1878 filed by the petitioner by way of second stay application is also disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS