Civil Revision No. 5929 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5929 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.9.2010 Smt.Krishna Kumari and Another …Petitioners Versus Nirmala Rani and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenants. A grievance has been made that the Rent Controller, Samrala, has committed a grave error in not allowing an application of the petitioners/tenants to produce revenue official as a Local Commissioner to prove that the demised shop is situated in a killa number, which falls outside the limits of Municipal Committee. But the Rent Controller held that there is no need for the appointment of the Local Commissioner in this case and to lead additional evidence by the respondents. The Rent Controller further held that the case would be decided on the basis of evidence produced on record by the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents/landlords has submitted Civil Revision No. 5929 of 2010 2 that petitioner No.1/tenant, during her cross-examination, admitted that her husband had obtained a demarcation report but the same was not tendered during the cross-examination or while leading her evidence. This Court is of the view that journey of the Court is to find truth. Nobody can be made to suffer for inadvertence or lapse which is not willful. Therefore, the core issue as to whether the demised shop is situated within the municipal limits or outside thereof, ought to be determined in the right earnest. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. The Rent Controller is directed to appoint any revenue official as a Local Commissioner to submit a report regarding the killa number wherein the demised shop is situated and furthermore as to whether that killa number falls within the municipal limits or outside. Since the petitioners have been remiss in bringing this fact to the notice of the Court and thereby they have caused delay in the culmination of the proceedings, this Court is of the view that the respondents/landlords ought to be compensated in monetary terms. Thus, the petitioners/tenants are burdened with the cost of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid to the respondents. On payment of the cost, the Rent Controller shall appoint the Local Commissioner. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 24, 2010 “DK”