- (1.) Applications are allowed as prayed for. CR No. 1422 of 2011 (O and M)
(2.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.01.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller by which an application filed by the Petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ''Code of Civil Procedure'') for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction dated 16.04.2009, has been dismissed.
(3.) In brief, the landlords filed eviction petition against 3 Respondents, out of whom, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear on 16.05.2008 and were proceeded against ex-parte, whereas Respondent No. 3 Petitioner appeared in person and the case was adjourned to 11.06.2008. On 11.06.2008, it was again adjourned to 11.08.2008 and on that date, following order was passed: Present: Counsel for the Plaintiff. Defendnats No. 1 and 2 ex-parte. Counsel for Defendant No. 3. Written statement on behalf of Defendant No. 3 not filed. On reuqest, adjourned to 08.09.2008 for filing written statement. Sd/- Paramjit Kaur Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) 11.08.2008. 6. On the next date, i.e. on 08.09.2008, Respondent No. 3 did not appear and he was proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, after taking the ex-parte evidence, the eviction order was passed. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had engaged Shri R.L. Chopra, Advocate who assured him that he need not to worry as he would appear in all the proceedings and he is not required to appear along with him. Since the aforesaid counsel Shri R.L. Chopra unfortunately died in the month of July 2008, therefore, he could not put in appearance on his behalf. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record from which I have found that the averment made in para No. 10 of the grounds of revision runs contrary to the order of the Rent Controller dated 11.08.2008 because in para No. 10 of the revision petition, the Petitioner has mentioned that his Advocate Shri R.L. Chopra has died in the month of July 2008, whereas in the order dated 11.08.2008 his presence has been marked. It is now well settled that the record of the Court is to be believed until and unless it is proved to the contrary by leading cogent evidence before the said Court. Here in this case, the record of the Court shows that counsel for the Petitioner, namely R.L. Chopra, if at all he was engaged, was very much alive and the story which has been put forward before this Court or before the learned Rent Controller for the purpose of getting the ex-parte order set aside, is patently false. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also not placed on record the death certificate of Shri R.L. Chopra to find out exact date of his death. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs.;