Judge dismissed a revision petition against a Rent Controller's order rejecting an application to set aside an ex-parte decree, as the petitioner admitted an appeal was maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC.
Revision petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to file appeal before Appellate Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR No.167 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
**********
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.167 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:12.01.2011.
Narender Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Rani Roseline and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition is directed against order of the learned Rent Controller dated 19.10.2010 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for setting aside ex-parte order of the learned Rent Controller dated 19.01.2010 and the decree dated 12.05.2010, has been dismissed.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has been confronted with the provisions of the Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the CPC, according to which in case of rejection of an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside an ex-parte decree, in case the ex-parte decree is appealable, the appeal would lie and not the revision. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, but it was withdrawn by his counsel on 04.01.2011 under the impression that only the revision is maintainable before this Court and not an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority.
Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has admitted that in terms of Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the CPC, appeal would be
CR No.167 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
maintainable before the learned Appellate Authority. Thus, he prays for withdrawal of this revision petition with liberty to file an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
Liberty is granted.
January 12, 2011 vinod*
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Narender Kumar
Smt. Rani Roseline and another
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
