IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.490 of 2002 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Munish Kumar … Petitioner Versus Bee Keeping Development Officer … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral ). This petition is directed against the order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiff. Shri Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urges that the order of the learned District Judge is illegal and against law and is liable to be set- aside. The brief facts necessary for decision of the Revision Petition are that a suit for recovery of Rs.4,29,590/- was filed by the Bee Keeping Development Officer, Kangra against 2 the present petitioner. Thereafter, an application was filed that in fact the suit had been filed on behalf of the Department of Horticulture by the Bee Keeping Development Officer being its Principal Officer but under law such suit was required to be filed on behalf of the State of H.P. through the plaintiff. Therefore, by means of the application it was prayed that the State of Himachal Pradesh through Bee Keeping Development Officer be permitted to be impleaded as party in the plaint. This application has been allowed. I fail to understand as to what prejudice will be caused to the petitioner by this application being allowed. The Bee Keeping Development Officer in his independent capacity had no right to file the suit. The suit has been filed to vindicate the claims of the State and it is the State of Himachal Pradesh which is a necessary and proper party in the proceedings. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly rejected. The suit was filed in the year 1999 and we are in the year 2008. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 14th January, 2009. The Registry shall ensure that the record of the court below is sent back as early as possible so as to 3 reach well before the next date. The District Judge, Kangra is directed to decide the case as early as possible as and in any event not later than 31st December, 2009. December 11, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ),J. PV