Civil Revision.No. 1047 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision.No. 1047 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:15th February, 2011 Subhash Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Gurtej Singh and another ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.(Oral) This revision petition is against the order dated 1.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 12.01.2011(Annexure P-4) by which the application filed by the respondent was allowed and the review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed respectively. The respondent had filed an application seeking permission of the Court for the inspection of the site in dispute. Notice of the application was issued to the respondent but no reply was filed. Ultimately on 12.01.2011, the learned Rent Controller, Bathinda passed the order directing the petitioner to allow Sh. A.C.Goyal, Architect to inspect the demised premises and to remove Civil Revision.No. 1047 of 2011(O&M) 2 the ply affixed in the shop in question and to take photographs. Aggrieved by the review application which was filed before the learned Rent Controller in which it was alleged that the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity to contest the application, the learned Rent Controller before passing the order had observed that many opportunities were given to the petitioner to file the reply but the same was not filed. Relying upon the precedents, learned Rent Controller dismissed the application for review as well. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to disturb the order of learned Rent Controller dated 1.10.2010(Annexure P-2) and order dated 12.01.2011(Annexure P-4). In view of the above, I find no merit in this case and as such the same is hereby dismissed in limine. [RAKESH KUMAR JAIN] JUDGE 15th February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik