S.S.SODHI,J - (1.) THE challenge in revision here is to the order of the rent controller declining to set aside the ex parte order of revision passed against the petitioner.
(2.) THE record shows that both the petitioners and the landlord appeared before the rent controller on December 22, 1984 and the case was then adjourned for the filing of the written statement to January 5, 1985. The petitioner did not appear and was consequently proceeded against ex parte on that date and the case was then adjourned for the proceeded of the ex parte evidence of the petitioner to January 22, 1985. It was on this date that an order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner. Since then, possession of the demised premises has already been taken by the landlord on September 13, 1985 and it is said that new tenants have also been inducted in these premises with effect from September 18, 1985. According to the petitioner, Surinder Mohan Bakshi through whom the case was being defended had gone to Madras to attend to a case at the High Court there. Mr. Mohan Lal Jhanji, Advocate, Ludhiana who had been engaged as counsel on their behalf, could not appear on the date fixed as he was busy with his cases at Ludhiana. A some what different version was however, sought to be established in evidence, namely; that counsel had forgotten to note the adjourned date, that is January 5, 1985 in his case diary. Such variation in the plea raised in the application for setting aside the ex parte order and the evidence led in support thereof cannot but adversely reflect upon the credibility of the petitioner.
(3.) FURTHER , it is pertinent to note that though the petitioner was absent on January 5, 1985, the ex parte order of eviction was not passed on that date, but about a fortnight later on January 22, 1985. This clearly provided ample time and opportunity to the petitioner's counsel to have discovered his mistake, if any, in noting the date of the next hearing in the matter.;