262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 04.02.2026 Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 Judgment Uploaded on : 25.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced : Full JPS Chadha ... Petitioner(s)

VERSUS Rajinder Singh Koura & Anr ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. S.N. Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the JD-tenant-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P-1) on account of dismissal of his application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the landlord- respondents filed an ejectment petition on 17.04.2013 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Punjab Rent Act’) as applicable to Chandigarh seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioner from House No.2987/2, Second Floor, CAT I, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh. The tenant-petitioner herein, who is an advocate, did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.12.2013. Vide order dated 15.05.2014 the ejectment petition was allowed ex-parte and the tenant-petitioner herein was directed to handed over vacant possession within a period of three months. Execution petition was filed. Thereafter, an application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 15.05.2014. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2014. The tenant-petitioner herein filed CR-710-2015 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2016 and the ex-parte order was set aside. Thereafter, the tenant-petitioner filed his written statement and stepped into the witness box himself as RW1 and examined one Manoj Kumar, Clerk, Record Room, District Courts, Chandigarh as RW2. However, thereafter the tenant-petitioner failed to appear and was once again proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.11.2019. The ejectment petition was again allowed ex-parte vide order dated 22.11.2019. Execution petition was filed by the landlord-respondents. On 20.02.2020 the tenant-petitioner herein preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. In the execution petition the tenant-petitioner herein filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC stating therein that he had applied for a certified copy of the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Rent Controller vide application dated 03.02.2020. However, no intimation had been received qua the preparation of the certified copy. It was further averred in the application that since page Nos.7 and 8 of the order dated 22.11.2019 were not signed by the Rent Controller, hence, the copy was not supplied to the tenant-petitioner. It was further averred that since the certified copy was not supplied, the statutory right of the JD-tenant-

petitioner to file an appeal was being rendered nugatory. The said application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2023. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that as per the High Court Rules and Orders, it is incumbent on the Presiding Officer to sign every page and since all the pages were not signed, certified copy could not be given to the tenant-petitioner, hence, depriving him of his right to file an appeal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents would contend that the landlord-respondents have been suffering and have been unable to get the possession of their property since 2019.

5. After the arguments had been addressed by the parties, the matter was reserved. This Court deemed it fit to call for the original record. The facts, as narrated above, have now been culled out from the original record as the factum of the earlier