IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1297 of 2009 Date of decision:-09.03.2009. Krishna Chhabra ...Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panchkula whereby the application moved by her under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for being impleaded as defendant has been declined. Briefly the facts are that lease deed of rented suit-premises in question was executed in favour of Shri B.K. Chhabra, the husband of the petitioner Krishna Chhabra and Shri Rakesh Kumar Chhabra, her son for a period of 5 years at the rate of Rs.42500/- per month. Shri B.K. Chhabra expired on 8th of April, 2005 leaving behind the petitioner and three sons namely Rakesh Chhabra, Mukesh Chhabra and Rajesh Chhabra as legal heirs. On 01.11.2006 a civil suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff praying for grant of decree of possession by way of ejectment of defendants from the rented out premises as described in the head note of the plaint. Rakesh Chhabra and Mukesh Chhabra are the legal heirs of B.K. Chhabra, who were only impleaded as respondents as it appears that they were the ones, who were carrying on his business in the said premises. On the basis of the pleadings, issues have been framed and this Court has been informed that one of the issue is mis-joinder/non-joinder of parties, as the remaining two C.R. No.1297 of 2009 -2- legal heirs namely petitioner-Krishna Chhabra and Rajesh Kumar Chhabra have not been impleaded as defendants. Be that as it may, after the completion of the evidence of the parties, when the case was listed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Sub Rule (2) was moved by the petitioner for impleadment as defendant. The application was contested by the respondents-plaintiffs by way of filing the reply. After consideration of the same, learned Trial Court dismissed the same by observing, firstly; that since defendant No.1 Rakesh Chhabra was engaged in the business of the firm being the sole proprietor, therefore, there was no need to implead the rest of the legal representatives............; secondly, that the application had been moved at the final stage of the case inspite of the knowledge of the petitioner regarding the pending appeal case, with a view to delay the matter. It was further observed that the petitioner is residing with the defendants- her sons. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner Krishna Chhabra was throughout aware of the proceedings pending against the defendants-sons regarding their tenancy rights. She took no steps for almost three years. It appears, only at the final stage of the case, to delay the whole issue, she filed the present application. In any case non-joining of necessary parties is already one of the issues to be decided by the learned Trial Court. In view of the same I find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. March 9, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE