IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2169 of 2002 Date of decision:25.02.2009 Roshan Lal Aggarwal ...Petitioner versus Mahesh Chand Gupta alias Mahesh Parkash Bansal ...Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. The Civil Revision is of the year 2002 and the interim order passed has stayed the pending proceedings. On a consideration of the relevant record, I find that the Appellate Authority in rent control matters had originally allowed the petition for impleadment on 25.10.2001 under Order 22 Rule 10 and 11 read with sections 107 and 151 C.P.C. The order passed on 25.10.2001 was objected to by the applicant before the Court on the ground that the order had been passed without any notice to him. The Appellate Court while examining the contentions of the rival parties found as a matter of record that the order Civil Revision No.2169 of 2002 - 2 - had been passed on 05.10.2001 without reference to the merits and that it was his considered view that the order had to be recalled to allow the parties to contest the application on merits. 3. I find no error in the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 13.03.2002. The revision is wholly without merits and it is dismissed. The Appellate Authority shall now take up the application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 and 11, pass appropriate orders before taking up the main appeal itself for disposal on merits as per procedure established by law. 4. The Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.02.2009 sanjeev