Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The respondent/landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in dispute. The application was allowed ex parte on 12 December 2011 by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved, petitioner made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure stating that he could not appear on the date of hearing for the reason that he was trying to settle the dispute outside the Court with the respondent/landlord. The settlement could not be reached, therefore, he did not appear on the date fixed for hearing. The Authority by order dated 10 April 2012 rejected the application noting that the application was not maintainable as the release application was decided on merits. Aggrieved, by the order dated 10 April 2012 rejecting the application under Rule 13 of Order 9 and the decree, the petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 25 October 2011, the evidence of the petitioner was closed, however, the Court permitted the petitioner for filing the evidence on 18 November 2011. On