RAJINDER NATH MITTAL, J. - (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. The application was contested by the respondent inter alia on the ground that there was no sufficient ground forsetting aside the ex parte order and that the application was not within limitation. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : 1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte decree ? 2. Whether the petition is within time ? 3. Relief. He held that on account of the order of Mr. D.S. Chatha dated July 28, 1973 the application was barred on the principles of res judicata and therefore, there were no sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte order of ejectment. On the question of limitation, he however, held that the provisions of limitation Act did not apply to set aside the ex parte ejectment order. He further held that the decision by Mr. D.S. Chatha, that the application was barred by the period of limitation, was binding upon the parties, consequently the application was dismissed by him. The petitioner went up in appeal against the aforesaid order to the Appellate Authority, Jullundur who held that no appeal was competent against that order. Instead of returning the memorandum of appeal to the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court, he further decided the case on merits and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. The petitioner has come up in revision against that order to this court. The petitioner also filed an application CM No. 860 -C -II of 1978 for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition.
(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.;