Judgment:
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.10.2005 passed by the executing Court striking off the defence of Judgment debtor as well as to the order dated 1.4.2006 vide which application filed under Section 151 CPC for revising the order dated 8.10.2005 was declined.
2. The petitioner-judgment debtor Sanjhi Ram was ordered to be ejected by the Rent Controller in an application moved under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority so was the revision by this Court.
3. As in pursuance to the order passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed upto re-visional Court, the petitioner failed to hand over the possession, an execution application was filed wherein after availing some opportunity, the objections were not filed. It is the case of the petitioner that on 8.10.2005, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pleaded no instructions. In view of the said statement, the learned executing Court passed the following order:
Reply/objection has not been filed by the JDs rather learned Counsel for the JDs have no instructions from the JDs. Meaning thereby JDs are not interested to pursue the present execution application. Therefore, defence of the JDs qua this execution application is hereby struck of. Warrant of possession of the demised premises as mentioned in the decree be issued on filing of fresh PF, LIST of property and certified copy of the decree alongwith warrant fee for 3.12.2005.
4. After a period of over one month of passing this order, an application was moved on 8.11.2005 under Section 151 seeking revision of the order dated 8.10.2005. The petitioner sought the revision of order on the ground that Judgment debtor has not authorised his counsel Shri S.K. Gupta to make such statement in Court. It may be pertinent to mention here that no other grounds were mentioned by the petitioner in the said application. The petitioner challenged the order dated 1.4.2006. However, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. As far as the order dated 1.4.2006 is concerned, it would be seen that no error can be found with the said order as the learned executing Court has rightly held that it has no power under Section 151 C.P.C. for revising his own order. However, even if the said application is treated to be one for recalling of order striking off the defence, the same was without any merit. The reading of the application moved by the petitioner shows that in fact no ground was made out to file objections against the order of ejectment which has attained finality. Even otherwise, no reasons were given as to why no objections against the execution were filed. Once the counsel pleaded no instructions nor there was any objection petition pending before the executing Court, it has no option but to strike off the defence of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no party should be allowed to suffer for the fault of the counsel.
5. The second contention raised was that there was no delay in moving the application for recalling the order and therefore, it ought to have been accepted as the application was moved prior to the limitation period. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the executing Court has the power to review and therefore, it was not right in rejecting the application. In support of his contention, Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in The Ludhiana Guru Nanak Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Regd.), Ludhiana v. Makhan Singh and Anr. (1991-2) 100 P.L.R. 600 to contend that it was not open to the Court to hold that the revision against an order striking off the defence would only lie to the High Court. The Court has the inherent powers to recall the order striking off the defence. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Sarswati Khera v. Ram Kishan and Ors. (2001-1) 127 P.L.R. 247 to contend that the words 'sufficient cause' should be construed liberally and when the counsel pleaded no instructions, then it was incumbent upon the Court to issue notice to the party instead of proceedings ex parte. There can be no dispute with the said proposition. However, it has to be noticed that the order of recall can be passed only if the Court is satisfied about sufficient cause. However, in absence of sufficient cause, there is no provision to automatically recall an order on the basis of averments made which are totally vague. In the present case, admittedly no objection petition was pending on the basis of which the notice could be issued to the petitioner when the counsel pleaded no instructions. Even in the application for recalling the order, the only stand taken by the petitioner was that he had got given any instructions to the counsel to plead no instructions. However, nothing was said as to what objections were required to be filed, the application further did not disclose remotely as to what was his objections which were required to be decided and because of non-decision thereof what loss has been caused to the petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned trial Court. The learned executing Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under law which does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.