Civil Revision No. 6749 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6749 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.11. 2009 Mehar Chand Garg ......petitioner Versus Balwinder Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) for being impleaded as a party. Vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2009, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. The suit had been filed in a representative capacity on Civil Revision No. 6749 of 2009 (O&M) 2 behalf of 403 old members under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. The name of the applicant-petitioner figures at Sr. No. 247. Defendants No.3 and 4 were permitted to represent remaining 160 new members. However, defendant No.3 made a statement that he did not want to represent remaining 160 new members. Defendant No.4 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 19.9.2002. The plaintiffs had challenged the induction of 160 new members in the year 1990 and 1994 on the ground that they had been inducted by breaching the constitution of the society. The action of defendant No.1 society in issuing partnership to 160 new members was alleged to be illegal. The petitioner is an old member whose name appears at Sr.No.247. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to represent the new members as the suit in question has been filed on behalf of the old members. In these circumstances, the application had been rightly dismissed by the trial Court as the petitioner has no locus standi to represent the new members. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 18, 2009 anita