IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1870 of 2007. Date of Decision: 12th February, 2008... Ashok Kumar Aggarwal ....Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Dadwal, Advocate Versus Sukhdev Singh ...Respondent through None. 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 11.12.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Rent Controller, Kapurthala whereby an application moved by the petitioner for restoration of his ejectment petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act), has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondent has been duly served but no one appears on his behalf. The petitioner-landlord filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises comprising of one room. After the respondent had put in appearance and issues were framed, the said ejectment petition was dismissed in default on 1.11.2004. Civil Revision No. 1870 of 2007. ::-2-:: The petitioner moved an application for restoration thereof on 6.12.2004 with a specific plea that inadvertently, his counsel (Shri V.K.Puri, Advocate) had wrongly noted the date as “6.12.2004” instead of 1.11.2004. In support of the said averment, the petitioner produced one Gurinder Pal Singh, who was working as Clerk to Shri V.K.Puri, Advocate. The application for restoration was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 6.12.2004 itself. The learned Rent Controller, however, has dismissed the aforesaid application primarily on the ground that it was moved after 30 days of dismissal of the ejectment petition, yet was not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Hardly any convincing reason is assigned by the learned Rent Controller to discard the deposition made by Gurinder Pal Singh, Clerk to Shri V.K.Puri, Advocate. The inadvertent mistake, like noting of a wrong date by a counsel or his clerk is not an unusual event, therefore, unless it was proved otherwise by the respondent, the said explanation ought to have been accepted. There appears to be no tangible reason as to why the petitioner would have delayed the eviction proceedings initiated by him. Besides, the Court's endeavour should be to decide a lis on merits and not on technicalities. For the reasons afore-stated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 11.12.2006 is set aside and the Civil Revision No. 1870 of 2007. ::-3-:: application for restoration of the eviction petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 24.3.2008. Since the respondent has remained ex-parte, the learned Rent Controller shall issue fresh notice to him before proceeding further in the matter. Disposed of. February 12, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE