Skip to content


Manoj Verma Vs. Chander Mohan - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Case Number

C.R. No.2184 of 2012 (O&M)

Judge

Appellant

Manoj Verma

Respondent

Chander Mohan

Excerpt:


.....order and also the forum to which such appeal would lie. the provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the rent controller in the proceedings under the 1949 rent act. there is no specific provision in the section that if a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the rent controller does not challenge that order in appeal immediately, though provided, and waits for the final outcome, whether in the appeal challenging the final order of the rent controller, the correctness of the interlocutory order from which an appeal lay could or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order." faced with the situation counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority, bhatinda. accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority, bhatinda against the impugned order. however, it is made clear that the appellate authority, bhatinda shall decide the appeal on merits and also consider the stay.....

Judgment:


G.S.SANDHAWALIA J, (Oral).

Civil Misc. No.9235-C-II of 2012

Prayer made in the application under Section 151 C.P.C. is for grant of exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3.

In view of the averments made in the application, which are supported by affidavit, the Civil Misc. Application is allowed.

C R No.2184 of 2012

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 5.3.2012 whereby the Rent Controller, Bhatinda has assessed the provisional rent of the premises in question along with interest to tune of Rs.3,60,958/- and directed that the rent assessed be paid by 9th April, 2012.

This Court in Mohan Singh Vs. Surinder Pal Singh 2012(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 259 after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 247 held that such orders are appealable. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjit Singh Uppal's case (supra) are as under:-

"25. Section 15(1) (b) of the 1949 Rent Act provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal. The Section provides for limitation for filing an appeal from that order and also the forum to which such appeal would lie. The provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act. There is no specific provision in the Section that if a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller does not challenge that order in appeal immediately, though provided, and waits for the final outcome, whether in the appeal challenging the final order of the Rent Controller, the correctness of the interlocutory order from which an appeal lay could or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order."

Faced with the situation counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition to file an appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority, Bhatinda.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Bhatinda against the impugned order. However, It is made clear that the Appellate Authority, Bhatinda shall decide the appeal on merits and also consider the stay application if such appeal is filed within a period of 10 days from today.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //