The deliberate absence of a party from proceedings and the lack of substantiation for their arguments can lead to the dismissal of their application for restoration.

JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J. - Prayer in present Revision Petitionis for setting aside order dated 08.11.2016 Annexure P1 passed by learned Rent Controller, Amritsar vide which application filed by the petitioner-tenant under order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte ejectment order in Rent Petition titled as 'Krishan Lal Vs. Deepak Mehra and another' has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/landlord herein had filed rent petition dated 28.04.2001 seeking ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No.2 from the premises in question. The petitioner was duly served in the said Rent Petition and even munadi was conducted. However, as the petitioner chose not to appear in the said matter, vide order dated 22.01.2002 the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, ejectment order was passed on 20.03.2003. Thereafter, execution petition was filed by the respondents in which the petitioner appeared and filed objections, and simultaneously on 30.5.2003, filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside ex parte order. However, application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed in default on 04.03.2005 whereas the execution was adjourned to 14.03.2005. It is the petitioner's case that the Order 9 Rule 13 application of the petitioner was dismissed in default due to mistake in noting down the date by counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, warrants of possession were executed on 29.03.2005. On 2.4.2005, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of Order 9 Rule 13 proceedings. It is against the dismissal of this application for restoration vide impugned order dated 8.11.2016 that the present Revision Petition has been filed.

3. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 within stipulated period of 30 days on 02.04.2005 itself and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the mistake of his counsel. It is further submitted that the bona fide of the petitioner/tenant is made out from the fact that in the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13, he had tendered total arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.39,000/- on 12.08.2004 which was even accepted by the respondent/landlord albeit under protest. Learned counsel further submits that though issues were framed in 2006 and the petitioner closed his evidence in 2006 itself, however, thereafter, the matter was deliberately delayed by the respondent till 2016. Learned counsel repeatedly submits to emphasise that in this revision petition he is not arguing on the merits of the matter; but has only sought restoration of the matter and disposal of his application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. It is submitted that the respondent took ten years to complete the evidence of RWs and that his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC may or may not be allowed by the learned Court below however, the application for recalling impugned order dated 08.11.2016 ought to be allowed as the same was passed on account of mistake in noting down the date by counsel for the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, and not on account of any mistake on part of the petitioner. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Civil Appeal No.1415 of 1981 titled as 'Rafiz and another Vs. Munshilal and another'; Civil Appeals No.1027---1028 with 1029-1030 of 1992 and CA Nos.8465-8466 of 2022 titled as S. Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and others Vs. Smt. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs and others WITH Smt. Ram Piari (dead) by LRs and others Vs. Smt. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs and others & Sahib Singh Rathi and others Vs. Smt. Gulab Sundri Bapna (dead) by LRs and others; FAO No.113 of 1974 titled as 'Avtar Singh Minor etc. Vs. Bhajan Singh etc.'; CR No.7765 of 2013 titled as 'Varun Goyal Vs. Gurdarshan Singh Mann and others; CR No.2049 of 2010 title