CR No.1648 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1648 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:28.03.2011 Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. . . .Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Singh and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Ms.Kulwant K.K., Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 14.1.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh by which an application filed by the landlord for fixing mesne profit has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the landlord had filed an application for fixing mesne profit before the Appellate Authority after the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller. That application was contested by the tenant/petitioner by filing a reply, however, learned counsel for the tenant submits that she had not argued the application which has been allowed on 14.1.2011. She has submitted that zimni order recorded on 14.1.2011 is incorrect where the Court has recorded that “arguments concluded on the application of mesne profits filed by the respondents”. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. There is an order recorded by the learned Appellate Authority on 14.1.2011, which reads as under: “Present: Mrs.Kulwant K.K. counsel for appellants. Sh.H.S. Aswasthi, counsel for respondents. CR No.1648 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - Arguments concluded on the application of mesne profits filed by the respondents. Vide separate order of even date, the application for fixing the market rate of rent stands disposed of. For arguments to come up on 14.2.2011” The whole grievance of the petitioner is that though she had not argued the application yet, the Court had recorded that the application was argued and passed the impugned order. There is no mechanism with this Court to find out as to whether the petitioner is speaking truth or lying. However, it is now well settled by the Supreme Court in the case “State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another” AIR 1982 SC 1249 that the record of the Court cannot be doubted and if there is any doubt, the litigant is free to approach the same court who had passed the order. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to send the record back to the Court below. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 28, 2011 JUDGE Vivek