SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Harish Dabas - Appellant
Versus
Amit Gupta - Respondent
CM-5380-CII of 2021 in/and CR No. 7805 of 2019
Decided On : 30-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Satish Dabas, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner, for the Appellant; Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate for the non-applicant-respondent, for the Respondent

The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to accept written statements beyond the specified period in appropriate cases, as per the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and the CPC.

Headnote:

Rent Control - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 13 - CPC - [Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and the power of the court to accept written statements beyond the period of 90 days as per provisions of the CPC]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of the application for recalling an order and setting aside another order by the learned Civil Judge. The petitioner's defense was struck off as the written statement was not filed within the specified time.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's written statement was ready on the specified date, and the landlord had yet to lead evidence. The court held that the petitioner should be allowed to file the written statement and defend the matter.

Issues: The issues revolved around the dismissal of the petitioner's application for recalling an order and setting aside another order, and the petitioner's right to file the written statement beyond the specified period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and the court's power to accept written statements beyond the period of 90 days as per provisions of the CPC.

Final Decision: The court set aside the orders and directed that the petitioner's written statement be taken on record, subject to the petitioner depositing a cost to be paid to the respondent-landlord. No further opportunity was to be afforded to the petitioner, and the respondent-landlord was given the liberty to file a replication and proceed with the trial.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. (Oral). - This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.

CM-5380-CII of 2021.

Prayer in this application is for preponement of hearing of this revision petition which is listed for 23.09.2021.

Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate, appears on behalf of the nonapplicant-respondent and does not raise any objection to preponement of date of hearing of the revision petition.

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application as well as stand taken by learned counsel for non-applicant-respondent, hearing of CR No. 7805 of 2019 is preponed from 23.09.2021 for today itself.

Application is accordingly disposed of.

CR No. 7805 of 2019.

Petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging order dated 18.09.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurugram, dismissing the petitioner’s application for recalling order dated 28.09.2018 and further prayer for setting aside order dated 29.10.2018, whereby the petitioner’s defence, who is arrayed as a respondent before the learned Rent Controller, has been struck of as written statement was not filed.

It is submitted that the landlord, arrayed as respondent in the present revision petition, filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against the present petitioner. Petitioner appeared before the learned Rent Controller, Gurugram on 28.05.2018 and the matter was adjourned for 10.07.2018. Due to personal difficulty of the petitioner’s counsel, matter was adjourned for filing of written statement on 23.08.2018. As the learned Rent Controller was on casual leave on 23.08.2018, matter was taken up on 21.08.2018 and adjourned to 28.09.2018. Written statement, it is stated was drafted and ready to be filed on 23.08.2018 itself. He refers to copy of the said written statement along with affidavit of the petitioner, which is attached with this petition as Annexure P-4. However, arguing counsel, who represented the petitioner could not reach the Court of learned Rent Controller on 28.09.2018, as he got stuck at District Courts at Nuh. His associate/ counsel was asked to seek an adjournment for one day. Request was turned down and defence of the petitioner was struck of vide order dated 28.09.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner immediately filed an application on the next day itself i.e 29.08.2018, for recalling of order striking of petitioner’s defence along with copy of the written statement, though the written statement was not accepted.

Learned Rent Controller, Gurugram, vide impugned order dated 18.09.2019, dismissed the petitioner’s application while observing that no ground for review of the order was made out and that sufficient effective opportunities had been afforded.

It is submitted that great manifest injustice shall be caused to petitioner, in case, orders dated 18.09.2018 and 28.09.2018 are not set aside and the petitioner is not permitted to file his written statement. Delay of 30 days in filing of the written statement was not due to any shortcoming, fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, he should not be made to suffer for the same. Application for recalling was moved immediately, without delay. Evidence of the respondent-landlord, it is submitted has not yet been led. It is submitted that the respondent-landlord can be duly compensated. The petitioner, it is stated undertakes to file the written statement on 3.08.2021, i.e the date fixed in the matter before the learned Rent Controller, if so permitted. It is thus prayed that the present revision petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the factual position insofar as averments regarding listing of the matter is concerned. It is thus prayed that the present revision petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their assistance.

Factual position rega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top