Civil Revision No.7697 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7697 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:20.12.2011 Sat Pal and another ....Petitioners Versus Tarsem Lal ....Respondent 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. Puneet Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is tenants' revision petition challenging the order dated 08.08.2009 of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby his eviction was ordered from the demised premises and the judgment dated 08.11.2011 of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, dismissing their appeal. On December 13, 2011, noticing the contention of the petitoner, the following order was passed:- Counsel for the petitioners submits that inspite of the fact that the petitioners had moved an application before the Appellate Authority for leading additional evidence, the same remained undecided despite the fact that specific argument was raised in this regard. From the order of the Appellate Authority, it is found that no such argument was raised. Let the petitioners also file an affidavit that his counsel has raised the argument before the Civil Revision No.7697 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Appellate Authority. List on 20.12.2011. Record of the Appellate Authority be called through Special Messenger for the date fixed. Today an affidavit of Sh.Inderjit Singh, Bhatia, Advocate, who represented the petitioners before the Appellate Authority has been filed in the Court. According to the aforesaid affidavit, the aforesaid counsel has argued the appeal as well as application for leading additional evidence before the Appellate Authority. Records of the Appellate Authority has also been perused. There is a specific zimni order dated 8.11.2011 at page 23 of the record which reads thus:- “Present: ShriJ.S.Bhatia, Advocate for appellant. Shri Hans Raj, Advocate for respondent. “Vide my separate order of even date, application filed by appellant under Order 41 rule 27 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code stands rejected. Vide my separate judgment of even date, appeal in hand is dismissed, with costs. Memo of costs be prepared. File of this appeal be consigned to record room. Record of learned lower Court be sent back forthwith. Pronounced 08.11.2011. (sd/-) Appellate Authority Jalandhar Not only this, at page 77 of the record of the Appelalte Authority, this court finds an order of the Appelalte Authority whereby an application filed by the petitioners for leading additional evidence has been dealt with and has been decided. Civil Revision No.7697 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Thus, the contention raised before this court on 13.12.2011 is false and incorrect and against the record. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this revision petition, at all. Dismissed. December 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE