IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1113 of 2007. Date of Decision: 21st January, 2008... Balbir Singh & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate Versus Randhir Singh & Anr. ...Respondents through Mr. Pardeep Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1113 and 1114 of 2007 as the same involve common questions of law and fact. The petitioners are aggrieved at the order dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla whereby their application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading them as defendants in the suit filed by respondent no. 2 against respondent No.1, has been dismissed. The facts may be noticed briefly. Respondent NO. 2 has filed a suit against respondent No. 1 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,13,880/-. The said suit is based on a promissory note and receipt, allegedly executed by the first respondent. The aforesaid civil suit was filed on 20.2.2005. Despite the fact that a legal notice was served upon petitioner No. 1 by respondent No. 2 on 30.4.2005 to the effect that a civil suit has already been filed, therefore, he should refrain from purchasing the land of respondent No.1, petitioner No. 1 along with his two sons, i.e. Petitioners no. 2 and 3 purchased the land of respondent No.1 by way of registered sale deed dated 30.5.2005. Meanwhile, the learned trial Court, on an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. ordered attachment of the properties of respondent No.1 – defendant which included the land sold by him to the petitioners. It is thereafter that the petitioners moved an application for their impleadment as defendants which has since been dismissed by the learned trial Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of the suit, namely, recovery suit and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Gupta v Kiran Girhotra & Ors., 2007(4) Civil Court Cases, 813, no interference in the impugned order is called for. Dismissed. January 21, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE