SURASWATI DEVI Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Misc. No. 860/C -II of 1978 and Civil Revision No. 1968 of 1977.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that an ex parte order of ejectment was passed by Mr. Shamsher Singh, Rent Controller, Jullundur on November 22, 1966, in favour of Hari Chand respondent and against Smt. Saraswati Devi petitioner. She filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that in the petition for ejectment no service was effected upon her. The application was filed by her in the Court of District Judge, as the Court of Mr. Shamsher Singh, Rent Controller had been abolished. The same was entrusted by him to Mr. D.S. Chatha, Rent Controller for disposal. It appears, on transfer of Mr. D.S. Chatha, it was decided by Mr. S.S. Tiwana, Rent Controller -cum -Sub Judge Ist Class, Jullundur.

(3.) THE first question that arises for determination is whether there are sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. In order to determine this question, it will be necessary to refer to some of the dates and the salient facts. The application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed on August, 3, 1973 which was dismissed by the Rent Controller -cum -Sub Judge First Class on September 3, 1977. The petitioner made an application for obtaining a copy of the order of the Rent Controller on September 5, 1977 which was ready for delivery on September 19, 1977. She filed the appeal against that order to the Appellate Authority on September 27, 1977 which was dismissed in limine on November 14, 1977. She thereafter, made an application for obtaining copy of the order of the Appellate Authority on November 19, 1977 which was made available for delivery on December 24, 1977. Thus it took her 36 days in obtaining the copy of the order of Appellate Authority. The revision petition in this Court was filed by her on December 20, 1977 with an application that filing of the certified copy of the order of the Appellate Authority be dispensed with at this stage. It was listed for motion hearing on December 21, 1977 when notice was issued for January 13, 1978. In the meanwhile, dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. She also annexed copy of the order of the Rent Controller with the revision petition. She filed the application for obtaining that copy on November 21, 1977 and the copy was ready for delivery on November 29, 1977. Thus she took nine days in obtaining the copy. In case the days for obtaining copies of the orders of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are taken into consideration, the revision petition is with in limitation.