Allowed

District Sangrur Khadi Gram Udyog v. State Bank of Patiala, Patiala

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2010CR/2156/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision challenging the rejection of an application to set aside an ex parte dismissal of an appeal. The court held the application was not time-barred as it was filed upon knowledge of the order and was filed by authorized counsel.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; case remanded to Appellate Authority to decide appeal on merit with parties appearing on 11.10.2010.

District Sangrur Khadi Gram Udyog Vs State… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.2156 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.09.2010

¶3

District Sangrur Khadi Gram Udyog Karya Karta- Sangh

¶4

........Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Bank of Patiala and another

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶9

Present: Mr. N.S.Jagdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

**********

¶12

VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises Act, vide which the application moved by the petitioner, for setting aside the order of dismissal of the appeal in default, stands rejected.

¶14

The petitioner was ordered to be evicted by the prescribed authority under the Public Premises Act. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority. The date in appeal was fixed as 11.09.2009. On the date fixed, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared, therefore, the appeal was ordered to be dismissed in default.

¶15

It was on 21.10.2009 that the petitioner made an application for setting aside the order of dismissing the appeal in default, on the ground that due to the wrong noting of date by the Clerk of the counsel representing the petitioner, it could not appear in the Court on 11.09.2009.

¶16

Civil Revision No.2156 of 2010

¶17

-2-

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the date wrongly noted was 21.10.2009, but when the representative of petitioner appeared in the Court on the noted date the case was not listed, on enquiry, it was revealed that the case was listed on 11.09.2009, and dismissed in default. The application was moved immediately thereafter.

¶19

On notice, the application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the stand taken in the application was totally false as it was averred in the application that the counsel was present on 11.09.2009, but he could not get his presence marked, further more the application was moved by unauthorized person, as he had no authority to file an application under Order 9 Rule 9 for setting aside of the order dismissing the appeal in default.

¶20

It was also the contention of learned counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands, as they had chosen to file two appeals against the order passed by the prescribed authority, one at Patiala and another at Sangrur, though only one appeal was competent.

¶21

Learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Sangrur dismissed the application as time barred and having not been filed by the authorized person.

¶22

On consideration, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is well settled law that the limitation in case of an application for setting aside ex parte order is to commence either from the date of order, if known, or from the date of knowledge.

¶23

The averments made in the application were clear that it was due to the wrong noting of the date that the petitioner could not appear on 11.09.2009, and that it was only on 21.10.2009, it came to know about the impugned order, and the application was moved on the same day.

¶24

Civil Revision No.2156 of 2010

¶25

-3-

¶26

Learned Appellate Authority was, therefore, not right in holding that the application to be barred by time.

¶27

The second ground on which the application has been rejected also cannot be sustained, as the application for reviving the case was with respect to an appeal, which was filed by an authorized person under the authority given by the competent person. Application was also moved by the same counsel, who had filed the appeal, and his power of attorney had not come to an end, therefore, it could not be said that application moved was not by an authorized person, as held by the learned Appellate Authority and contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Case is remanded back with a direction to the learned Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before learned Appellate Authority under the Public Premises Act, on 11.10.2010.

¶29

No costs.

¶30

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶31

September 09, 2010 Gagan

District Sangrur Khadi Gram Udyog v. State Bank of Patiala, Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Sangrur Khadi Gram Udyog v. State Bank of Patiala, Patiala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh & Anr. Vs Ramdia & Ors.

Harjinder Singh & Anr. Vs Rameshwar Dass

M/S Hargobind Bus Service( Regd.) Vs Jaspal and Another

Surjit Singh Vs Gurmeet Singh etc.

Randhir Singh and Ors. Vs Hardeep Singh and Ors.

Parminder Singh Vs Mandeep Kaur