Disposed

Vijay Kumar and Anr. v. Panna Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2008CR/1537/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the High Court set aside an appellate authority order dismissing an eviction appeal due to delay caused by the petitioner's negligence. The Court directed the authority to condone the delay and decide on merits upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order of dismissal; remanded to Appellate Authority to decide appeal on merits after condoning delay upon payment of Rs. 10,000/-.

Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs Panna Lal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1537 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1537 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision: 11.12.2008

¶6

Vijay Kumar and Another

…Petitioners

Versus

Panna Lal

... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶15

In the present case, eviction petition was filed against the respondent-tenant. Learned Rent Controller had dismissed the eviction petition on 25.1.2005. The petitioners applied for certified copy of judgment 29.7.2005. The same was supplied to them on 10.8.2005. Still appeal was filed by the landlord on 6.9.2005. Ground stated in the application was that the petitioner was not informed by his counsel Mr. S.K.Gupta, Advocate.

¶16

Learned Appellate Authority noticed the fact that the appeal has also been filed by Mr. S.K.Gupta, Advocate, who was counsel in the Court of learned Rent Controller. Learned Appellate Authority further noticed that the name of the Clerk, who had not provided the information

¶17

Civil Revision No. 1537 of 2008

¶18

¶19

regarding dismissal of eviction petition, has not been mentioned in the application. The petitioners have not only been negligent in pursing the case but had taken the litigation in leisure mode.

¶20

Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has sought indulgence of this Court on the ground that on the broad principles, rights of the parties should be adjudicated, taking into consideration fair play and balance of equities. Learned counsel further states that for lapse on the part of petitioners, respondent can be compensated by way of cost.

¶21

Taking into consideration conduct of the petitioner and the fact that the rights of the parties should be adjudicated on merits, I am of the view that order passed by learned Appellate Authority on 16.1.2008 is required to be set aside and learned Appellate Authority after condoning the delay ought to decide the appeal on merits.

¶22

Taking into consideration conduct of the petitioners, cost in the present case is quantified at Rs.10,000/-

¶23

The landlord may appear before the Appellate Authority on 14.1.2009. On payment of cost, appeal be decided on merits.

¶24

In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed

¶25

off.

¶26

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶27

December 11, 2008 “ DK ”

Vijay Kumar and Anr. v. Panna Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar and Anr. v. Panna Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Pal Vs Gopal Krishan

Manjit Singh Vs Gopal Krishan

Jai Parkash Vs Gopal Krishan

Khazan Singh and Ors. Vs Prithvi Singh Sharma

Sham Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

K.K.Jhamb Vs State of Haryana & Ors.