High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 11 P&H CK 0131

Vijay Garg vs Sunil Chandra

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 November 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudip Ahluwalia, J
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 7645 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 364 words

Sudip Ahluwalia, J.

1.

This revision is directed against two separate orders passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram dated 18th October, 2018.

2.

Vide the order of even date (Annexure P-7), the application of the petitioner/tenant under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for dismissal of

the original suit/eviction petition on the grounds of same being barred by the res judicata, was dismissed as the Ld. Court below was of the opinion that

the earlier suit/eviction application filed by the petitioner-landlord had been dismissed for technical defect, and there was no categorical finding on the

question of whether or not the alleged personal bona fide requirement of the petitioner-landlord of the demised premises was proved or not.

3.

Per se this Court finds no visible impropriety in the aforesaid decision, and Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if along

with a decision on rest of the issues framed, the Ld. Trial Court may re-consider alleged non-maintainability of the suit on the grounds of the res

judicata at the stage of final hearing.

4.

In the given circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage, and a direction is passed upon the Ld. Trial

Court to re-consider this aspect while identifying the issues to be framed in the light of the pleadings of the parties.

5.

The second order of the same date (18th October, 2018) is directed merely against the imposition of cost which according to the petitioner/tenant is

exorbitant.

6.

This Court is not inclined to issue any notice upon the landlord-respondent at this stage because such a course would only have the effect of

unnecessarily delaying the pending proceedings.

7.

Consequently, the revision is disposed off by modifying the second order dated 18th October, 2018 vide which cost of Rs.20,000/- was imposed

upon the petitioner for accepting his written statement at a belated stage. In the given circumstances, the amount of aforesaid cost is reduced to

Rs.10,000/- in favour of the respondent.

8.

Any excess payment in compliance of the aforesaid order, if already made by the petitioner may be adjusted against his future rental liabilities.