IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 145 of 2006. Decided on June 29, 2010. Rajender Singh Negi …. Petitioner. Versus Bishan Singh & others ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant M/S T.S.Chauhan and Rajan Kahol, Advocates. For the respondents Mr. K.S.Kanwar, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). Suit for possession has been filed by respondents 1 to 4, against respondents 5 to 6, alleging that one Smt. Shanti Devi was a tenant in the premises, from which eviction of respondents- defendants is sought and that on her death, respondents-defendants 5 and 6, along with the present petitioner Rajinder Singh Negi and one Chetan Negi, were allowed to stay in the premises for a few days, as licensees, to perform the obsequies of said Shanti Devi and that now, premises are not being vacated by them. 2. Present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for being impleaded as Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - defendant. His petition has been dismissed by the trial Court. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Before filing the suit, respondents 1 to 4 served a notice upon respondents 5 to 6. Copy of the notice is available on record at pages 18 and 19. As per this notice, besides respondents 5 to 6, present petitioner and one Chetan Negi were also allowed to remain in occupation of the premises and that all of them, that is, respondents 5 and 6, as also the present petitioner and Chetan Negi, had not vacated the premises. Therefore, present petitioner is a necessary party, because, he being in possession, alongwith respondents 5 and 6, would not be bound by the decree, if the suit is ultimately decreed, unless he is made a party. 5. Consequently, petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The result is that petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of Rajinder Negi is allowed. It will be advisable for respondents 1 to 4 to implead even Chetan Negi, as a defendant, to avoid multiplicity of litigation. June 29, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.