AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunita Agarwal, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 8.5.2009 whereby the release application was allowed ex parte. It appears that the petitioner filed his written statement and thereafter remained absent and as such the release application was decided on merits, the petitioner was directed to vacate the shop in question within two months. It appears that a recall application under Section 34 (g) read with Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner for recall of the ex parte order of release which was rejected.
The petitioner has filed the written statement and the engineer''s report along with photograph on 4.9.2003. On 13.4.2004, order was passed to proceed ex parte and thereafter the order dated 8.5.2009 was passed on the merits of the release application. The petitioner has not been able to explain as to what stopped him from appearing between 2003 and 2009, despite having information about the pending proceeding.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner will suffer serious civil consequences as he will be evicted from the disputed shop without being heard on merits.
Be that as it may, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the merits of the release order in an appeal under Section 22 of the Act after explaining delay in filing the same.
In case, appeal is filed, the appellate Court shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal on merits taking liberal view in the matter of condonation of delay.
With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed.