IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6498 of 2010 Date of Decision:11.7.2011 Jai Pal .... Petitioner Versus R.D. Business Centre Pvt. (Ltd.) Company and others.... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) This is revision against the order dated 23.8.2010 (P-1) passed by the Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon vide which the application of the petitioner to implead Haryana Urban Development Authority as party was dismissed. The facts in short are that during the pendency of the suit, respondent executed and got registered exchange deed with Haryana Urban Development Authority with regard to land in dispute and some other land and when it came to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application to implead Haryana Urban Development Authority as party. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the exchange deed executed in favour of Haryana Urban Development Authority, the Haryana Urban Development Authority may encroach upon the land or may dispose it of or may sell it to different persons. Moreover, after the plots are carved out and allotted to different persons, the matter may lead to further litigation. As such, the impleading of Haryana Urban Development Authority is necessary. Heard. While dismissing the application, the Court below relied C.R. No.6498 of 2010 -2- upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal 2004(2) SCC 601 wherein it has been held that the bringing of lis pendences transferee on record is the discretion of the court and even if the transferee has not been brought on record he is bound by the decree in the suit. As stated above, in the present case, it is the plaintiff who has moved the said application whereas as per the judgment rendered in the case of Raj Kumar (Supra) relied upon by the Court below, it was the transferee, who himself moved the application. Moreover, in the facts of the present case, the party to be impleaded is Haryana Urban Development Authority, who being Government Agency, may even allot the said land to different persons leading to further litigation, which may cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. Furthermore, respondents have not appeared to contest the present revision petition inspite of service. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and order dated 23.8.2010 (P-1) passed by the Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon, is set aside and the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed to implead Haryana Urban Development Authority as party. Necessary amendment in the memo of parties be made before the trial Court. 11.7.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE