IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6460 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Smt. Sheela Rani -----Petitioner Vs. Smt. Bagwati Devi & 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. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Despite service no one is present on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. As per the averments made in this petition, respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller, Gurgaon for ejectment of the petitioner and respondent No.2 under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. 3. It is a matter of record that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 filed a joint written statement to the ejectment petition. On 8.11.2010, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte and the case was adjourned for 9.2.2011 for evidence of C.R. No.6460 of 2011 respondent No.2 at his own responsibility. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid order, proceeding against ex parte, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 6.9.2011, holding that non-appearance of advocate due to strike of the Bar is not a good cause and there is no ground to set aside the ex parte order dated 8.11.2010. 4. It may also be noticed at this stage that vide order dated 8.11.2010, the petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and no ex parte eviction order/decree was passed and therefore, the petitioner could have appeared on the subsequent dates. The zimni orders which were passed subsequent to the aforesaid date have not been placed before this Court for perusal. Even otherwise, a joint written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2. Admittedly, respondent No.2 has continued with the proceedings. 5. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this revision petition. 6. Dismissed. December 19, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 2