Civil Revision No. 1922 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1922 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Shanti Prakash Jain ......Appellant Versus M/s Kundan Rice Mills and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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: Shri Suvineet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.2.2007, whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 3, were ordered to be impleaded as parties to the suit. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23.2.2005. The petitioner also entered into an agreement to sell with respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 18.11.2005. The sale deed in pursuance of both the agreements was to be executed on or before 15.11.2005. Since the sale deed was not Civil Revision No. 1922 of 2009 [2] executed in terms of the aforesaid agreements, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 moved an application for impleading themselves as party in the present proceedings. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court on 12.2.2007. The said order is challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition filed on 31.3.2009 i.e. after more than two years of passing of said order. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the petitioner has intentionally delayed the filing of the petition so as to defeat the cause of action of the said respondents to seek specific performance of the agreement by way of a separate suit. The order impugned in the present revision petition is dated 12.2.2007. Such order cannot be permitted to be challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition after more than two years of the passing of said order. There is no explanation for the delay in challenging the order after two years. Thus, the present petition suffers from gross delay and laches. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 14-10-2009 ds