IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 662 of 1993. [O&M] Date of Decision: 5th August, 2009. Jatinder Singh etc. Petitioners through None Versus Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Saini, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.1992 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC moved by the petitioner – tenants to set aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 22.8.1988, has been dismissed. The record reveals that no interim stay was granted to the petitioner-tenants by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlords states that possession of the demised premises has already been taken by the respondents in execution of the ex-parte eviction order. Be that as it may, it also stands established on record that the petitioner – tenants were duly served on 16.2.1987 but they chose not to appear before the Rent Controller, as a result of which ex-parte eviction order was passed on 22.8.1988. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was moved by the petitioners on 4.2.1989. In order to prove that the petitioners were duly served in the eviction proceedings, the respondent – landlords have produced Som Nath, Process Server [RW3] who proved the report [Ex.R4], on the summons [Ex.R3] and according to which the first petitioner refused to accept the service. Prem Nath, another Process Server [RW4] has also entered the witness box to prove his report that the petitioners refused to accept the notice. Similarly, Vinod Kumar Chopra [RW5] has proved the copies of the summons. In addition, respondent No. 1 also entered into the witness box. As against it, the petitioners have made a bald statement that they never refused to receive the summons or that the report has been procured against them. No cogent evidence in support of the vague and evasive allegations has been led by the petitioners. In these circumstances, no interference with the impugned order is called for. Dismissed. August 05, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE