C.R. No. 250/2014. Case: K.K. Dixit Vs Madan Gopal Choubey. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | C.R. No. 250/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.P. Khare, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: A.A. Awasthy, Learned Counsel |
| Judges | Sanjay Yadav, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order IX Rule 13; Order V Rules 17, 2, V; Order XVI Rule XVI; Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 23B, 23C, 23C(1) |
| Judgement Date | August 04, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Sanjay Yadav, J.
-
With consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is heard finally.
-
Alleging non observance of mandatory provisions contained under Section 23B read with the form specified in the second schedule of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 by the Rent Controlling Authority, the applicant calls in question the order dated 7.6.2014 passed by Sub Divisional Officer cum Rent Controlling Authority in Revenue Case No.43/B-121/2013-14; whereby, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for setting aside exparte eviction order dated 21.2.2014, has been dismissed.
-
Record reveals that a proceedings under Section 23A of 1961 Act was brought by respondent before the Rent Controlling Authority. Notice whereof where tendered on the applicant respondent by Registered A/D which returned with an endorsement that the addressee had refused to accept the notice. The Authority without recording evidence of the postman presumed the same to be correct and by order dated 15.1.2014 directed for service of notice to respondent by "Chaspa" for appearance on 25.1.2014. On 25.1.2014 the Presiding Officer was not available. The matter was posted on 31.1.2014; whereon for non appearance of respondent, he was proceeded ex-parte and an ex- parte eviction order was passed on 21.2.2014. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was filed on 5.6.2014 for setting aside the ex-parte order along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the summons were not properly served and it is only when the ex-parte order was put to execution the applicant came to know on 2.6.2014 about the ex-parte order. Accordingly it was urged that the application is within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge. The Authority by order dated 7.6.2014 however, dismissed the Application.
-
The order as apparent is a cryptic one and does not take into consideration relevant provisions of 1961 Act and of the CPC.
-
Section 23B of 1961 Act provides:
"23-B. - Rent Controlling Authority to issue summons in relation to every application under Section 23-A.- (1) The Rent Controlling Authority shall issue to the tenant a summons, in relation to every application referred to in section 23-A, in the form specified in the Second Schedule.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of order V and Order XVI of the First Schedule to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial