Civil Revision No. 7654 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 7654 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 12.12.2011 M/s Kemi Laboratories Pvt. Limited ....Petitioner Vs. Estate Officer, U.T., Sector 17, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This petition assails the order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, allowing the application filed by respondent No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as party defendant in the suit. Respondent No.2-M/s Hans Raj Kohli & Co. is stated to be the tenant in the premises owned by Union Territory, Chandigarh. The plaintiff-petitioner is claiming himself to be a tenant under respondent No.2. The respondent wanted to remove some unauthorized construction in the premises against the bye laws, therefore, the petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondents not to demolish or remove the said construction (cabins) or any part of the wooden and glass partition on the ground floor of the tenanted premises. Respondent No.2 being Civil Revision No. 7654 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the original tenant under the respondent, has already filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. As such, he wants to contest the suit in order to protect his rights and save the property from being resumed for the violations caused by the petitioner by pleading that the petitioner made such alterations without his consent. Since the additions and alterations allegedly made by the petitioner against the bye laws, made by the respondent, could entail the resumption of the plot and imposition of fine over respondent No.2. As such, respondent No.2 is directly concerned with the lis between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment delivered by this Court in case Rajeshwer Singh Sarao and another Vs. Jagdish Rai and others, Civil Revision No. 1827 of 2011 (decided on 19.05.2011). However, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. If respondent No.2 does not contest the suit, its rights are likely to be seriously prejudiced. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) December 12, 2011 JUDGE ajp