Harbhej Singh vs Darshan Moudgil

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, dated 03.4.2010, by which application of the Petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,''CPC''), for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 31.5.2007, was dismissed.

Only grievance raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Court below has dismissed his application without affording an opportunity to lead evidence on the basis of his pleadings.

On the contrary, learned Counsel for the landlord/Respondent has submitted that a petition u/s 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short,''the Act''), was filed in which the tenant had appeared on 2.6.2006 as per the order recorded by the learned Rent Controller, which is reproduced below:

Present: Counsel for the Petitioner.

Respondent Harbhej Singh is present. Respondent came present in person. Service is complete. Now to come up on 18.7.2006 for filing reply by Respondent.

On 18.7.2006, second order passed is as under:

Present: Counsel for the Petitioner Written reply by Respondent not fled. On request, to come up on 4.9.2006 for filing written reply.

Learned Counsel for the landlord/Respondent submits that thereafter, ex-parte order was passed on 12.12.2006 as the tenant failed to file reply to the eviction petition. It is submitted that in any case, the tenant had no right to join the proceedings unless and until, he had sought leave to defend u/s 18A of the Act, that too within a period of 15 days from the date of appearance. On failure of the tenant to seek leave to defend, the entire proceedings which have been carried out by the learned Rent Controller in which the tenant/Petitioner has been proceeded against ex-parte for want of filing the written statement, is without any consequence because if within 15 days of appearance, leave to defend is not sought, that period cannot be extended by the learned Rent Controller and he has to decide the rent petition even without examining the landlord for the purpose of passing the order of ejectment.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the tenant/Petitioner had not sought leave to defend within the prescribed period, there is no use to decide the revision petition for granting him an opportunity by setting aside the order of ejectment to file reply to the main petition.

Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.