IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.42/2009 Date of Decision:8.1.2009. Jaswinder Singh @ Gora ..........Petitioner. Versus Satish Kumar and another. ..........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Vikram Bali,Advocate for the petitioner-plaintiff. JASWANT SINGH,J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P/4), passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Talwandi Sabo, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by applicant-respondent no.2-Som Dutt, to become a defendant to the suit filed by Jaswinder Singh-plaintiff-petitioner, has been allowed and applicant-respondent no.2-Som Dutt has been ordered to be impleaded as defendant no.2. Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondent no.1-defendant no.1(landlord) from dispossessing him from one shop measuring 12.6' x 10.9', described in the site plan attached with the plaint. It was alleged that the said shop was taken on rent vide rent deed dated 1.4.2006 @ Rs.1500/- per month and since respondent no.1-defendant no.1 was threatening to dispossess him from the shop in question, he filed the aforesaid suit. CR NO.42/2009 2 During the pendency of the suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff- Jaswinder Singh, an application dated 15.8.2008, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure P/3), was filed by respondent no.2-Som Dutt, for being impleaded as a defendant. It was alleged in the said application that in fact he was a tenant in the suit property and he had filed a suit against the present respondent no.1-defendant no.1-Satish Kumar (landlord) in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Talwandi Sabo. Alongwith the suit he had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, which was allowed restraining respondent no.1-defendant no.1- Satish Kumar (landlord) from dispossessing the respondent no.2-defendant no.2-Som Dutt (tenant) from the shop in question, but inspite of the injunction order, respondent no.1-defendant no.1-Satish Kumar (landlord) dispossessed the applicant-respondent no.2-defendant no.2-Som Dutt (tenant). Thereafter, an application for restoration moved by respondent no.2-defendant no.2-Som Dutt (tenant) was allowed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Talwandi Sabo vide order dated 23.11.2007 against which respondent no.1-defendant no.1-Satish Kumar (landlord ) filed a revision petition before this Court, which was dismissed. It was alleged by respondent no.2-defendant no.2-Som Dutt ( tenant) that in order to frustrate his rights, respondent no.1-defendant no.1- Satish Kumar (landlord) prepared a forged rent deed in connivance with the petitioner- plaintiff and filed the present suit on the basis of that rent deed, so as to secure the possession of the shop in question. It was further alleged that warrants of possession have already been issued regarding the said shop against respondent no.1-defendant no.1-Satish Kumar (landlord). It was CR NO.42/2009 3 stated in the application that the applicant has sufficient interest in the suit property, requiring him to be impleaded as a party in the present suit. Reply to the application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents on record, the learned trial Court has found that the applicant-Som Dutt is directly effected and has a direct interest in the suit property and therefore, allowed the application and permitted him to be impleaded as a defendant to the suit. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is not disputed that qua the shop in question, in the present suit, applicant-Som Dutt produced a copy of the injunction order dated 22.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Talwandi Sabo in a suit titled as Som Dutt v. Satish Kumar, whereby defendant no.1 was restrained from dispossessing plaintiff-Som Dutt. Said Som Dutt has also filed a copy of the order dated 23.11.2007, whereby defendant-Satish Kumar was directed to restore the possession to the applicant-Som Dutt. A copy of the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by this Court, vide which the revision petition filed by Satish Kumar was dismissed has also been produced on record. Besides that, Som Dutt also placed on record warrants of possession issued by the learned Court against defendant-Satish Kumar and which could not be executed due to interim stay order passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff-Jaswinder Singh in the present suit. CR NO.42/2009 4 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances when the rights of a third party namely Som Dutt-respondent no.2 are being infringed by the alleged collusion of the present tenant-Jaswinder Singh and Satish Kumar- landlord, then no fault can be found with the order dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P/4) whereby respondent no.2-Som Dutt has been permitted to join the proceedings as defendant. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed in limine. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Nothing stated hereinabove shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the civil suit pending between the parties. 8.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge