CR No.2168 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. *** CR No.2168 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 19.4.2011. Satish Kumar Sethi and another --Petitioners vs. Sushil Gupta --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate,for the petitioners Mrs.Abha Rathore,Advocate,for the respondent Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 03.3.2011 (Annexures P-11 and P-12) passed by learned Rent Controller, Panchkula, by which an application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,'CPC') by both the petitioners, namely Satish Kuma Sethi and Raksha Sethi, who happens to be the husband and wife for recalling of the statement (Annexure P- 3) made by Satish Kumar Sethi-petitioner No.1 which was recorded on 06.1.2011in which he had alleged that he would vacate the demised premises within a period of one and half year, has been dismissed. The husband, namely Satish Kumar Sethi filed an application for recalling of the order dated 06.1.2011 on the ground CR No.2168 of 2011 (O&M) 2 that he was pressurised by the Court to suffer the statement, whereas Raksha Sethi-petitioner No.2 (his wife) filed an application for recalling of the statement made by her husband on the ground that it may ultimately adversely effect her case because the said statement was made without her consent. Both the applications were taken up together by the learned Rent Controller and after a detailed discussion, it was observed that petitioner No.1 (Satish Kumar Sethi) is telling lies in the Court because he himself had opted to make the said statement on 06.1.2011 and there was no pressure exerted by the Court upon him in that regard. His statement was found to be contemptuous, as a result of which the application was dismissed with ` 1000.-as costs. The other application filed by his wife was also dismissed by the same order. Thereafter, the learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 03.3.2011 (Annexure P12) framed issues and granted only one opportunity to both the parties to lead their entire evidence. Notice of motion was issued in this case, pursuant to which the respondent has put in appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is an error in the order of the learned Rent Controller in dismissing the application for recalling of the statement made on 06.1.2011 which was made under coercion and pressure of the Court as one and half hour was given to him (petitioner No.1.Satish Kumar Sethi) to think over before he gave the statement and the same was made by him in the absence of his counsel Mr.S.K.Sud. CR No.2168 of 2011 (O&M) 3 In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the petitioners are running their business and understand the implication of their statement made in the Court. The statement was made in the Court on 06.1.2011 and there was no pressure exerted upon him (petitioner No.1) by the Court because no reason has been assigned in the application or otherwise argued before this Court. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another AIR 1982 Supreme Court Cases 1249 that record of the Court is to be taken as correct unless and until it is proved wrong before the same Court. Petitioner No.1 immediately filed an application on 10.1.2011 and after taking into consideration the circumstances in which the application was filed, the Court held that petitioner No.1 is total liar and dismissed his application with `1000/- as costs. I am not impressed with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the statement was made by the petitioner when his counsel was not present. It is not the case of petitioner No.1 that statement recorded on 06.1.2011 was not made by him, rather the same was suffered by him in the presence of his counsel Padam Singh, who identified him before the Court. Therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to state that the said statement was made under pressure of the Court. Hence, this revision with regard to Annexure P-11 is hereby dismissed. CR No.2168 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Adverting to the second order Annexure P-12, I find that the learned Rent Controller has committed an error of procedure as envisaged under Order 17 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908, according to which three opportunities are provided by the Legislature to the parties to the lis to lead their evidence, whereas the learned Rent Controller has provided only one opportunity to both the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has not very seriously supported the order Annexure P-12. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, order Annexure P-12 is set aside to the extent that the learned Rent Controller shall give appropriate opportunities to both the sides in order to prove their case. With these observations, order Annexure P-12 is set aside, though without any order as to costs. April 19,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge