Allowed

Lal Chand v. Vinod Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2009CR/1012/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal allowed the civil revision petition setting aside an order dismissing the applicant's application to quash an exparte ejectment decree. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 and directed rent payment at market rates pending a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the exparte ejectment order dated 07.08.1990 and the order dismissing the application to set it aside, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs and future rent payment.

Lal Chand Vs Vinod Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1012 of 1992 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No.1012 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision 19.02.2009

Lal Chand

...... petitioner

VERSUS

Vinod Kumar and Mam Raj

¶8

...... Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr.Gaurav Sethi, Advocate, for Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):

¶14

Petitioner has brought this petition for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 10.12.1991 passed by Rent Controller, Narnaul in Civil Suit No.05/1990 vide which application for setting aside the exparte ejectment order dated 07.08.1990 was dismissed.

¶15

The ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord was fixed for summoning on 20.02.1989. On that day, it was Sunday, as such the case was taken up on 21.02.1989. Due to inadvertence, the petitionertenant (herein referred as petitioner) could not appear before the Court on that day. But later, he came to know that the judgment was passed against him in this case on 07.08.1990, then immediately, he after obtaining the copy of the order, moved an application for setting aside the exparte order on 27.08.1990 which was dismissed on 10.12.1991. The application was filed within limitation.

¶16

Civil Revision No.1012 of 1992 (O&M) 2

¶17

In view of the abovesaid facts, it appears that the absence of the petitioner is unintentional. The question of the ejectment relating to shop was meritorious in nature. The petitioner was not to be benefitted by filing the delayed application. Passing of an exparte decree in a case of this nature is too harsh a consequence to be upheld. Under these circumstances, there are sufficient grounds for setting aside exparte decree. However, the respondent could be compensated with costs and other conditions could be imposed.

¶18

Resultantly, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 07.08.1990 is set aside, and consequently, exparte order dated 07.08.1990 is also set aside, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs and it is further directed that the respondent would make payment of the rent at the market rate upto date as assessed by the Court.

¶19

Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Narnaul on 10.03.2009.

¶20

February 19, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) mamta-II JUDGE

Lal Chand v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Chand v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Jindal Vs Manjeet Singh

Nafe Singh Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Chanan Singh Vs Parvinder Singh

(O&M) Balwant Rai Naruala Vs Sita Ram Gandhi

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Pb.State

Lachhman Singh Vs State of Hy.