Civil Revision No.5756 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5756 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:12.10.2011 Smt. Manmeet Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus M/s Goyal Steel Furniture and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is landlords' revision petition challenging the order dated 15th June, 2011 (Annexure P7) whereby an application filed for making correction of a typographical error in the judgment has been declined. As per the facts of this case, the petitioners are the landowners/co-owners of the demised premises and the respondents were inducted as tenants. Petitioners filed eviction petition against the respondents on various grounds including the ground of non- payment of rent. The provisional rent of the demised premises was assessed vide order dated 04.01.2011 and the case was adjourned to 15.03.2011 for tendering the rent. However, no rent was tendered Civil Revision No.5756 of 2011 (O&M) 2 by the respondents-tenants and eviction petition was accepted and respondents were ordered to be ejected vide judgment dated 15.03.2011. The petitioners moved an application before the Rent Controller for making correction in paragraph 7 of the judgment wherein date of tendering the rent was mentioned by the Rent Controller as 16.03.2011 instead of 15.03.2011. Vide impugned order, aforesaid prayer of the petitioners has been declined by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh observing as under:- “I have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the file. In the case in hand there is an application seeking amendment in the 6th line of para 7 on page 6 of judgment dated 15.03.2011. However it is to be seen that this application was objected to vehemently by the opposite counsel and further admittedly the judgment and decree is in appeal before the Ld. ADJ, Chandigarh. Therefore, in these circumstances since the matter is pending adjudication before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, I do not deem it fit to make any amendment in the judgment as even the ld. Counsel for the petitioner has admitted that this does not affect the merits of the case in any manner. With these observations the application in hand is hereby disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.” Aggrieved from the aforesaid order, petitioners have filed instant revision petition. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 21.09.2011.Respondents are represented by Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents could not dispute the fact that the date of tendering the rent, as per Civil Revision No.5756 of 2011 (O&M) 3 the record, was fixed as 15.03.2011 and there is an apparent error in the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh as alleged by the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid fact, which could not be disputed by the learned cousel for the respondents, this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Even otherwise, simply because the appeal filed on behalf of respondents against the order dated 15.03.2011 was pending before the Appellate Authority, the relief claimed by the petitioners could not have been denied to him, as it was a typographical error only and the same was required to be corrected as per record of the Rent Controller itself. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.06.2011 is set aside and it is ordered that in the sixth line of Para 7 of the judgment of Rent Controller the date of tendering the rent be read as 15.03.2011 instead of 16.03.2011. Disposed of. October 12, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE