Dismissed

Tarlok Singh v. Parmjit Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2011CR/7067/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application for condoning delay in setting aside ex parte judgments in eviction and recovery of rent suits. The court held that a delay of over 8 years was not excusable, especially given the petitioner's prior admission of knowledge of the 1998 eviction order. The revision was dismissed in limine.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed in limine.

Tarlok Singh Vs Parmjit Kaur — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 7067 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

**Civil Revision No. 7067 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 17.11.2011 *****

Tarlok Singh

.. Petitioner

VS.

Parmjit Kaur

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR

¶11

**Present:Mr. P.N. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. *****

¶12

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶13

The application of the petitioner dated 12.12.2007, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay which occurred in filing the appeal against the ex-parte eviction order dated 30.11.1998, has been dismissed by the appellate Authority below, by virtue of order dated 2.5.2011, necessitating him to file the instant revision petition.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

It is apparent that in an ejectment petition filed by respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, was accepted ex-parte and the tenant was ordered to be ejected from the premises, by dint of judgment dated 30.11.1998. It reveals from the paper book that a suit for recovery of arrears of rent was also filed by respondent landlady and therein also the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, consequently the suit was decreed on 22.10.1999. Thereafter, on 11.12.1999 the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 22.10.1999, which was passed for recovery of arrears of rent. Issues were framed on the application and the parties led their evidence. The petitioner, while appearing in the witness box, admitted that he came to know about the passing of eviction order in

¶16

¶17

Civil Revision No. 7067 of 2011

¶18

December, 1999, but surprisingly he did not opt to file any application for setting aside the judgment dated 30.11.1998 at that point of time, rather he volte face has taken the stand in the instant civil revision that he was never made aware either of ejectment or the proceedings of the civil suit, which cannot be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is colossal delay of more than 8 years in filing the impugned application and the petitioner has failed to explain the same by giving plausible reasons. Therefore, the application was rightly rejected. There is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶19

November 17,2011 Jiten

¶20

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

Tarlok Singh v. Parmjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarlok Singh v. Parmjit Kaur

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

Ram Niwas Vs Attar Singh & Others

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Puran Chand

Bata India Limited Vs Om Wati Jain

Nafe Singh Vs Neem Singh and Anr.

Punjab Mandi Board & Anr. Vs Jagjit Singh

Amarjit Kaur Vs Gurmeet Kaur and Ors.