IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2185 of 2008 Date of decision:24.02.2009 Surinder Singh ...Petitioner versus Bikram ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Talwar, Advocate for the respondent. 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The order directing an ex parte order of eviction passed to be set aside is the subject of challenge in revision before this Court. 2. The Rent Controller has considered the fact that it had pre-poned the date of hearing from 17.03.2005 to 05.03.2005 and it had passed an order of eviction. Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the tenant had been set ex parte even in the year 2004 before the ultimate order of eviction was made. So long as the actual evidence had not been recorded and he was merely set ex parte, it was always open to a party to move an application to set aside such ex parte order. The Courts are always liberal in consideration of the matters under Civil Revision No.2185 of 2008 - 2 - Order 9 Rule 7. The Rent Controller has taken note of the fact that the preponement of case to an early date had been made without actual notice. No notice was indeed necessary, since the respondent had already remained ex parte. The Court had decided to give an opportunity to contest the case on payment of cost. Since it has chosen to exercise its discretion in a particular fashion, I do not think, it is a matter that calls for interference in revision. 3. The Civil Revision is dismissed in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.02.2009 sanjeev