NARINDER AGGARWAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.5.2013, passed by the Rent Controller, whereby defence of the petitioner was struck off on account of non-filing of reply despite grant of numerous opportunities. In the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady, service of the petitioner was effected and he had put in appearance on 1.3.2013. Thereafter despite grant of four opportunities, including one last opportunity, reply was not filed, as a result of which vide impugned order, defence of the petitioner was struck off.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reply to the eviction petition could not be filed in time as neither the petitioner nor his counsel was aware of the order passed by the court below on 25.4.2013, whereby last opportunity was granted. In fact, even the order passed on 18.5.2013 came to the notice of the petitioner only on 6.7.2013, when he sought to file reply. The error was not intentional. The case has not yet proceeded further. The petitioner be granted one opportunity to file reply, may be subject to payment of some cost.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. No doubt, it has been held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. providing for time to file reply are directory in nature and time provided therein can be extended, however, the fact remains that in the present case, after service of the petitioner, he had put in appearance for the first time on 1.3.2013, when in the presence of counsels for both the parties, the case was adjourned to 15.3.2013 for filing of reply and assessment of provisional rent. Thereafter, on three different dates till 25.4.2013, the case was adjourned for filing reply, however, reply was not filed. On that date, the case was adjourned to 18.5.2013 while granting last opportunity. Still on the next date of hearing, reply was not filed, as a result of which not only the trial of the case was delayed, even the provisional rent also could not be assessed. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find that any case has been made out for grant of any further opportunity to the petitioner to file reply. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.