Civil Revision No.476 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.476 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-July 22,2009 Smt.Birinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Arjun Dass and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present: Shri A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Shri.Aashish Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Shri Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby the petitioner's application to recall/modify the order dated 4.4.2007, has been dismissed. The petitioner alongwith her son (proforma respondent No.2) filed an eviction petition against respondent No.1-tenant. The eviction petition was dismissed in default on 22.7.2006. Learned counsel, through whom, the eviction petition was filed, moved an application on 27.7.2006 to recall the order dated 22.7.2006. The Civil Revision No.476 of 2009 2 application was duly supported with an affidavit of the assisting counsel. The circumstances, which prevented the counsel for the petitioner to appear at the time when the case was called, were also duly explained. The Rent Controller accepted that application as no objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent-tenant, but restored the petition “qua petitioner No.2 only”. The present petitioner, who was petitioner No.1 before the Rent Controller, thereafter, moved an application to recall/modify the order dated 4.4.2007 and to set-aside the order dated 22.7.2006, dismissing the eviction petition in default, qua her also. That application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller vide the impugned order after observing that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 4.4.2007; the application dated 27.7.2006 was filed by petitioner No.2, namely, the present petitioner's son only as it was signed by him and that there is no verification in the present application. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In my considered view, the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reason that once the explanation given by the counsel, through whom the petitioner and her son have filed the joint eviction petition, has been accepted un-opposed, there could be no reason in law or facts not to set aside the order dated 22.7.2006 qua the petitioner also. Since the order of dismissal in default of the eviction petition qua the petitioner was not set aside on account of an Civil Revision No.476 of 2009 3 error apparent on record, there was no legal necessity for her to challenge the order dated 4.4.2007. The petitioner was well within her right to invoke the inherent powers of the Court and seek the correction thereof. Similarly, the fact that Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate, through whom, the application for setting aside the order dismissing the eviction petition in default was moved, is admittedly working with Shri R.S.Walia, Advocate, who is the counsel for the petitioner and her son. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 10.12.2008 is set aside and the order dated 4.4.2007 is also modified/corrected to the extent that the order of dismissal in default of the eviction petition dated 22.7.2006 shall be taken to have been recalled/set aside qua the petitioner as well. Dasti. (Surya Kant) Judge 22.7.2009 AS