cr no.7637 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.7637 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2009 **** Suneel Kumar and another . . . . Petitioners VS. Ashok Kumar . . . . Respondent **** 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? **** Present: Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.12.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt., whereby, an application under Section 35-B CPC moved by the petitioner-tenants, has been dismissed. (2). The impugned order reveals that the respondent-landlord could not produce his witnesses on 23rd July, 2008 and the case was further adjourned to 20.09.2008 subject to payment of cost of Rs.400/-. It appears that the costs were not tendered on 20.09.2008. Hence, the petitioner- tenants moved an application under Section 35-B CPC on that very day. The said application remained pending for a year until it was withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioners on 26th October, 2009. cr no.7637 of 2009.doc - 2 - (3). On that very day i.e. 26.10.2009, the petitioners moved another application under Section 35-B CPC, inter alia, alleging that their lawyer had not authority, whatsoever, to withdraw the previous application and the same should be decided on merits. The second application has now been dismissed by the impugned order. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt. while dismissing the second application moved by the petitioners. The Rent Controller has highlighted that firstly, the cost amounts were subsequently deposited by the landlord and thus there was a substantial compliance of the order dated 23.07.2008. Secondly, the lawyer had full authority in terms of the Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the petitioners, to withdraw the application under Section 35-B CPC. (5). No interference with the impugned order dated 05.12.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt, is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction (6). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.12.2009 vishal shonkar