KARNAIL SINGH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. When the said appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he had no instructions from the petitioner for that date. The respondent did not admit the claim of the petitioner and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed in default. This order was 22.8.80. The petitioner filed an application was dismissed and hence this revision petition was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of dismissed in default and the subsequent order of not setting it aside are not legal. There is force in this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Actually the counsel for the petitioner had appeared in the court on the date on which the appeal was fixed for hearing and he stated that he had no instructions. It is difficult to understand as to how the counsel who has filed the appeal has to wait for instructions because the appeal has to be conducted on the facts on record of a case. Learned counsel, therefore, was not correct in saying that he had no instructions. However, in these circumstances, the court should have issued notice to the petitioner. Moreover reasons given for not setting aside the order of demised in default cannot be accepted. It is proper to quote the relevant portion of the order of the appellant authority which is as under :

(3.) As mentioned earlier when counsel appears in an appeal and he had to conduct a case relying on the record of the case and the law, it will not be proper for him to say that he had no instruction. The reasons given by the appellate authority also cannot be accepted. There is no reason as to why this appeal should not be allowed.