IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :27.10.2025 NARINDER SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS KUSHAM RANI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HER LRS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-19) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, whereby the application filed by the applicant-petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024 was dismissed. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Court, i.e., the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the first appeal preferred by the applicant-petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 11.08.2015 was also dismissed.

2. The applicant-petitioner had preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 17.12.2024 as well as the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024, whereby Rent Petition No. 5 of 2017 was allowed. In his application, the applicant-petitioner asserted that he had been diligently contesting the eviction petition filed by the landlord and that he, along with his counsel, had been regularly appearing before the Court on each and every date of hearing. On 13.12.2024, both the applicant-petitioner and his counsel remained present in Court; however, the case was not called in their presence and was adjourned to 17.12.2024. On 17.12.2024, the applicant-petitioner again remained present in Court, but the case was neither called nor was the name of the applicant-petitioner announced, and the matter was adjourned to 18.12.2024. It is the case of the applicant-petitioner that he also remained present on 18.12.2024, yet again the case was not called, nor was any further date fixed. On 19.12.2024, upon visiting the Court premises, the applicant-petitioner came to know that the rent petition had already been decided ex-parte on 18.12.2024.

3. The applicant-petitioner further asserted that the order dated 13.12.2024 had not been uploaded on the e-Courts portal even up to 18.12.2024, and similarly, the orders dated 17.12.2024 and 18.12.2024 were also not uploaded till that date. On account of the non-uploading of these orders, the applicant-

petitioner and his counsel were unaware of the precise status of the case.

4. It was further averred that the applicant-petitioner had never remained absent on any date of hearing and that his counsel had already filed a complaint against the Presiding Officer, due to which the impugned orders were passed adversely against him. It was also submitted that the counsel for the applicant-petitioner had duly appeared in several other cases before the same Court on 13.12.2024, 17.12.2024, and 18.12.2024, which demonstrates his presence in the Court premises.

5. The applicant-petitioner contended that there was no reason for him

to avoid the Court as the case was fixed for arguments, and both he and his counsel

were fully prepared to address the same. It is thus submitted that the applicant-

petitioner was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte and has been condemned

unheard, without being afforded a proper opportunity to present his case.

6. The application for setting-aside ex-parte order dated 17.12.2024 and judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024 was duly contested by petitioner-landlord on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits. Both the Courts below, however, have rejected the contentions raised by applicant-petitioner, hence revision petition.

7. The learned Court of first instance, while dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, duly took note of the conduct of the present petitioner in detail. It was observed that the rent petition had been filed by the landlord, wherein respondent No. 2 had duly appeared, whereas responden