VARUN GOYAL Vs. GURDARSHAN SINGH MANN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-plaintiff is to the order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure P/7) whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh has declined to recall the order dated 13.12.2012 whereby the interpleader suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default.

(2.) The reasoning given by the trial Court is that the Court is not competent to sit in revision (sic review) in order which has been passed by the predecessor Court and the plaintiff and his counsel were to remain vigilant. It is further mentioned that provision under which the application had been filed has not been mentioned by the applicant.

(3.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the eviction petition was filed by respondent no.10-M/s Allied Properties for directing the eviction of the present petitioner from the First Floor and toilet of SCO No.226, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. The petitioner also filed a suit in the year 2008 since there was a dispute as to the ownership of the property in question. He also approached this Court by way of Civil Revision No.5651 of 2010 for clubbing the rent petition and the interpleader suit. This Court vide order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure P/1) directed the District Judge, Chandigarh to assign the interpleader suit and the eviction petition to one Court which would try both of them, separately but simultaneously. The tenant was directed to deposit rent in the Treasury which could be withdrawn by the Rent Controller so that interest of the ultimate beneficiary could be protected.