IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3311 of 2006 Date of Decision: 15.7.2009 Pritam Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Chanan Singh .......Respondent 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 Amit Mehta, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for partition filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. It is admitted fact that the suit property is a joint property of the parties and the same has not been partitioned. However, reference was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the previous judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 Exhibit D.1 and D.2. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment and decree would show that a finding was returned therein that the property is joint property. However, the suit was dismissed as the sister of the parties was not impleaded as a defendant in the aforesaid suit. In view of the said fact, the suit was dismissed for non-impleading of the necessary parties. The said judgment cannot be said to be bar against the plaintiff to seek partition in a subsequent suit as the suit was dismissed for non- joinder of necessary parties. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 15.7.2009 JUDGE ds