SWARAN KAUR Vs. RAKESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rakesh Raj, respondent No. 1 filed in ejactment application against predecessors of Piara Singh. Despite service, Piara Singh did not appear and therefore, he was proceeded ex parte.

(2.) The Rent Controller passed ex parte order of ejectment against Piara Singh on 6.11.1980. On 5.12.1980, Piara Singh filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte order of ejectment. This application was dismissed in default on 17.9.1981. Piara Singh thereafter filed another application dated 16.11.1981 for restoration of the application which was dismissed in default. This application was again got dismissed by him as not pressed. On 24.11.1981, when he gave a statement that 15 days time be given to him to vacate the premises. Though time was granted to him to vacate the premises, yet he again made an application on 14.12.1981 that he misunderstood the order dated 24.11.1981 by which he was granted 15 days time and, therefore, application dated 16.11.1981 be restored. This application was again got dismissed as not pressed. On the same very day (25.1.1982), he filed another application for restoration of application dated 16.11.1981. The Executing Court, pressed with one application after the other, finally allowed the petitioner's application dated 25.1.1982 and the application dated 16.11.1981 was ordered to be restored. On 23.2.1988, application dated 16.11.1981 as well as execution application which was pending was dismissed in default. Piara Singh thereafter filed another application on 13.6.1988 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 6.11.1980. This application was dismissed by the Executing Court by passing a detailed order. The application was also dismissed on the ground that the same was clearly barred by time. This order was never challenged by Piara Singh. The decree-holder when filed the execution application to get the eviction order executed, Piara Singh filed objections on 21.4.1990. In the objection petition, it was claimed that the application dated 16.11.1981 was never decided and, therefore, the execution application is not maintainable. The Executing Court issued warrant of possession and when the decree-holder was in the process of taking possession, Piara Singh filed civil Revision No. 1604 of 1990 in this Court in which the order of the trial Court issuing warrant of possession was impugned on the ground that his objection petition is yet pending consideration before the Executing Court. In this petition, he also took up a ground that his application dated 16.11.1981 was never decided. This civil revision (CR No. 1604 of 1990) was dismissed by G.C. Mital, J. (as his Lordship then was) on 30.5.1990. On 11.6.1990, yet another application was filed by Piara Singh, that his application dated 21-4.1990 as well as application dated 16.11.1981 be decided. The Executing Court finding that Piara Singh is obstructing the execution of the decree, ordered that police help be given to the decree-holder for delivering possession to the decree-holder. In the meantime, Piara Singh died and his legal representatives (now petitioners) were, ordered to be brought on the record.

(3.) The-present civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction that the Executing Court be directed to decided application dated 16.11.1981 which was for the restoration of application filed by Piara Singh under order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him.