PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was delay of one month and 26 days in moving an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte order of ejectmeat passed on December 2, 1987, by the tenant Hindustan Commercial Bank. The delay was sought to the explained in the application asserting that the Bank came to know of the eviction order only on July 9, 1988 and thereafter approached the Zonal Office and the Head Office for taking further action. On technical considerations the delay occurred. This did not weigh with the Rent Controller who dismissed the application on February 18, 1989. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) THE Rent Controller, after referring to the pleas of the parties observed as under :". . . . . But in the present case, the applicant has not brought any document on the record of this file to show that it took about a period of near about 2 months in seeking the legal opinion from the Zonal Office and Head Office in order to file this application under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. Further more, I am of the view that in the present case, not such a difficult and complicated matter was involved which took about a period of two months for getting the final opinion from the Head Office for the Zonal. "

(3.) THE law does not require that only on production of documentary evidence the allegations made in the pleadings can be established. Two courses are open when application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed. Such an application can be disposed of by inviting affidavits of the parties concerned or their witnesses and the documents, if any, to be produced. The other is to frame issues on disputed questions of fact and after affording opportunity of leading evidence the application is to be disposed of. The latter procedure was not followed in the present case as is apparent from the impugned order. Thus, it is taken that the affidavits furnished by the parties in support of their allegations were taken into consideration. Although the impugned order also does not show that. Be that as it may, it was open to the Court to accept the evidence produced or to reject it but the impugned order does not show that any of these courses was adopted. The application was disposed of on the ground of non-production of documents relating to the action taken by the Zonal Office for the grant of sanction to challenge the ex parte order. In order to render substantial justice it is necessary that both the parties should be given opportunity to present their case on merits. The Courts are generally liberal while interpreting provisions like Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was no reason to discard the allegations of the Bank that it took more time in the Zonal Office to decide to get the ex pane order set aside. In the circumstances stated above, this revision petition is allowed The ex pane order of eviction is set aside subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The impugned order is set aside. Civil Revision disposed of The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on December 13, 1990. No Costs.