IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.6533 of 2010 Date of Decision: 7.10.2010 M/S Parbhakar Finlease Pvt. Ltd. ....... Petitioner. Versus Smt.Laxmi Devi and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.7.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani rejecting the application of the petitioner for impleadment as a party in the suit titled “Inder Singh Arora Versus Smt.Laxmi Devi and others”. The ground set up by the petitioner was that he has also an agreement to sell in its favour and since the subject-matter of the property in question is the same, it is an essential party to be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondents for specific performance. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and perusing the C.R.No.6533 of 2010 -2- .... file, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. The petitioner has already filed a suit for specific performance to enhance his cause of grievance. In the suit filed by the respondents, even if the subject-matter is the same, the petitioner would plead an independent cause of action if impleaded as party, which cannot be permitted. No interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is called for. The instant revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. October 07,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge