AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ranjit Singh, J.—This revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.10.2009. No one had appeared for the Petitioner before the Court to make submissions on the said date and thereafter, the order dismissing the revision petition in default was passed. Now Civil Misc. No. 10605-CII of 2011 has been filed to seek recall of the said order after 451 days of delay. Civil Misc. No. 10604-CII of 2011 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is also filed seeking condonation of this long delay. Except for stating that delay in filing the accompanying application is neither intentional nor deliberate and rather is caused due to the circumstances beyond the control of applicant-Appellant, no reason is given in the application to explain CIVIL MISC.N Os.10604-05-CII of 2011 in -2-CIVIL REVISION No. 3961 of 2008 this inordinate delay.
As per the settled position of law, each day is required to be explained. There are, thus, no reason what to talk of any sufficient reason to condone this delay. I am, thus, not inclined to condone the delay and recall order dated 29.10.2009 and the applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
Though there is no reason or a cause to deal with the submissions made by the counsel for the Petitioner on merits, yet in order to avoid chances of any prejudice, I have considered these submissions as made before me to satisfy myself if any cause is otherwise made out to call for interference in the revision petition.
The Respondent is a Non Resident Indian, who had filed an application u/s 13-B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Petitioner had appeared and sought leave to defend the petition, which was declined. The only ground that counsel for the Petitioner would urge is that the Respondent-landlord had sold various commercial properties and hence, it would show that his need is not bona fide. Though this submission is made and is pleaded as well, but there is no material placed on record to show that the Respondent-landlord had resorted to any sale of any property. Rather counsel for the Respondent has submitted that he had never sold any property and for this reason only the case had initially been adjourned to enable the counsel for the Petitioner to place on record the material. Thereafter, the counsel had chosen not to appear.
It may need to notice that case was adjourned on CIVIL MISC.N Os.10604-05-CII of 2011 in -3-CIVIL REVISION No. 3961 of 2008 number of occasions. Initially this came up for hearing on 29.7.2008. Rather on earlier occasion this Court had noticed on 21.11.2008 that the Petitioner even had not collected the dasti notices and thus, the prayer to grant short date was declined. Subsequently on 12.8.2009 parties were directed to maintain status quo. The case was then adjourned on number of occasions. On 14.10.2009, the case was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the Petitioner to have instructions in regard to the date of sale of commercial property by the Respondent. This order is as under:
Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to have instructions in regard to the date of sale of commercial property by the Respondent.
Adjourned to 23.10.2009.
Subsequently again, case was adjourned on request, but on payment of costs. Finally, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution when the counsel had not appeared on 29.10.2009. There is, thus, no case even on merits, which would be an added reason not to recall the order dismissing the revision petition for non-prosecution.