KUSUM LATA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to an order dated 24/5/2000 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, thereby disposing of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code moved on behalf of the petitioner-landlord praying for setting aside the dismissal of a petition, dismissed in default on 19/1/2000, and for its restoration.

(2.) On 19/1/2000, petition of the writ petitioner was listed for recording of evidence before the learned Controller but neither the petitioner nor her counsel or any other representative put in appearance and consequently the petition was dismissed in the post lunch session after waiting for the petitioner. Application under Order 9 Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code was moved on behalf of the petitioner herein stating that the counsel for the petitioner Ms. Rekha Aggarwal being busy in connection with her personal case listed in the Hon'ble High Court, she had asked a colleague Mr.Ashok Rawal, Advocate, to attend the case who unfortunately fell sick on that day and could not attend the hearing leading to the dismissal of the petition. The application was supported by affidavit of the counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Ashok Rawal, Advocate. The application was opposed on behalf of the respondent thereby denying the averments made in the application and there being any sufficient reason for non-appearance of the petitioner or her counsel and any good cause for restoration of the petition. The learned trial court although took note of the affidavits filed by the above named two advocates but has dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the absence of the petitioner on the date of hearing was not explained.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this court by means of a Civil Revision Petition bearing No.878/00 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 13/2/2001. The order reads as under:-