IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (115)

CR-79-2025 Date of Decision: - 10.01.2025 Jyoti and another ....Petitioners Versus Jarnail Ram Kalsi .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Bhawesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. (Through VC)

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for directing the trial Court to decide the application i.e. CM-310-2024 filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 04.05.2024 (Annexure P-7) for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 01.11.2022 (Annexure P-5) in Rent Petition No.223/2022 (Annexure P-1) pending for 23.01.2025 expeditiously and in a time bound manner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC dated 04.05.2024 and has prayed that the trial Court be directed to decide the said application expeditiously and has further submitted that during the pendency of the said application, the dispossession of the petitioners be stayed as the warrants of possession has been issued.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper-book and finds that the present revision petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 20 of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 on 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-1). Vide judgment dated 01.11.2022 (Annexure P-5), the said eviction petition was allowed and it was noticed in paragraph 3 of the said judgment that notice was issued to the present petitioners, which was received back duly served but none had appeared on behalf of the present petitioners nor leave to contest had been filed by 1the petitioners and the eviction petition was allowed and the petitioners were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within a period of 2 months from the date of the eviction order.

5. Petitioners have annexed the copy of the order dated

11.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), which reads as under: -

“Present: Sh. RAJESH KUMAR ARORA Advocate for the DH.

Sh. AMRITPAL SINGH BHARAJ Advocate for the JD.

Perusal of the file reveals that objections filed by JDs have already been dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2024. Further as per the orders placed on record by DH on the previous date of hearing, the appeal which was filed by the JD Jyoti has already been dismissed in default vide order dated 19.09.2024. It is a settled law of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is not a ground to stay the proceedings of execution. Further as per report of Ahlmad no stay order has been received in the present execution from any Appellate Court. Statement of bailiff has already been recorded on 09.04.2024 as per which the warrants of possession cannot be executed without police help and without breaking open of lock and door of property in dispute. Further application for police help has already been filed by DH on 09.04.2024.

Heard. Therefore in view of the said circumstances let warrants of possession be issued for 13.01.2025 along with police help for breaking open of lock of the property in dispute. A separate application for granting of police help be also issued to Commissioner of Police Jalandhar for providing police help. Long date is granted due to intervening winter vacations.

Date of Order: 11.12.2024 (Savreen Sandhu)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

UID NO . PB00645”

A perusal of the above-said order would show that the petitioners had filed the objections which were dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2024 and had also filed an appeal which had been dismissed in default on 19.09.2024. Both the said orders have not been placed on record but the passing of the said orders has not been disputed before this Court. In the order dated 11.12.2024, it was also observed that it is settled law that merely filing of an application unde