R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 13.2.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur, who dismissed the application of the tenant under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order dated 16.7.1999.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Sohan Lal son of Hari Ram filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent by making allegations that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent w.e.f. July, 1998. The ejectment application was filed on 30.3.1999. Notice of the application was given to the respondent and as per the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 16.7.1999 the respondent was served but he did not appear despite service and, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. The landlord led ex parte evidence before the Rent Controller who passed the ejectment order dated 16.7.1999 directing the respondent to vacate the demised premises within two months. Thereafter, the landlord filed an execution application in which notice was issued to the judgment-debtor. Resultantly, he filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order of ejectment on 2.11.1999. It was pleaded by the applicant/tenant that the landlord managed a wrong report on the summons. He managed wrong ex parte order also. The applicant came to know about the passing of ejectment order when he received the summons in the execution on 30.10.1999. On enquiry he came to know that he has been proceeded ex parte. Notice of that application was given to the landlord, who filed reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondent, the petitioner/tenant was duly served and there is no sufficient ground to set aside the ex parte ejectment order. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned executing court framed the following order :- "1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside ex parte proceedings ? OPP 2. Whether the application is barred by time ? OPR 3. Relief."
(3.) THE parties led evidence in support of their respective cases and vide impugned order dated 13.2.2001 the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. Hence the present revision.;