RAM DASS Vs. SUKHDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Clause (3) of Rule 1 of Order 23 of the code of Civil Procedure is stricto sensu applicable to the proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is the meaningful question which has necessitated this reference for decision by a Division Bench, by the learned single Judge.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and may be briefly delineated. The respondent Smt. Sukhdev Kaur and others had instituted a petition against the petitioner Ram Dass, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Sangrur, way back on August 16, 1974. After a protracted trial over more than three years, the controller, by considered judgment dismissed the petition with costs on November 26, 1977. Aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred an appeal which came up for decision on merits before the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, on May 25, 1978. On that very day, the respondents put in an application expressly under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking that they may be permitted to withdraw the ejectment petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This prayer was strenuously opposed on behalf of the petitioner but the Appellate Authority without even calling for any reply in writing from the petitioner allowed the said prayer of the respondents on that very day by the below quoted short order:-

(3.) Now to appreciate the aforesaid legal question what calls for pointed attention at the out-set is the very nature of the tribunal exercising jurisdiction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter called 'the Act'). Section 2(b) of the Act defining the word 'Controller' is in the following terms:-