C.R. No.5167 of 1997 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5167 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.08.2009 Man Singh .....Petitioner Versus H.S. Kohli and another ...Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The applications for amendment and impleadment of parties had been filed in a suit for injunction as was originally filed to include the prayer for specific performance and for addition of some more parties, who were alleged to have been interested in the subject matter. The trial Court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint, rejecting the contention on behalf of the contesting respondents that there had been a delay in filing the application. 2. The Court also considered the objection that when the matter was taken up for consideration, more than three years had elapsed. When the application for a prayer of specific performance was made, it was well within the period of years from the date of agreement and therefore, the application deserved to be allowed. 3. As regards the impleadment of parties, the Court found that persons who were not parties to the agreement were not required to be C.R. No.5167 of 1997 (O&M) -2- impleaded and save as impleading of parties 5, 11 and 13, the other proposed parties were not required to be impleaded. 4. At the time when the matter had been moved before this Court for admission, it is seen from the records that the impleadment denied to two of the parties namely Smt. Laxmi Devi and Satnam Singh was confirmed and the consideration of the case was to be made only with reference to the impleadment sought in respect of M/s Khalsa Nirbhay Transport Company. Although the said Transport Company is not a party to the agreement, the suit dealt with disputes between the parties with reference to the ownership of shares in the Transport Company. The Transport Company itself could not be involved in the dispute between the parties and although the impleadment of the Transport Company is not necessary, the presence may be proper for an effective adjudication. The order of the lower Court is set aside partially only in so far as it concerns the impleadment of the M/s Khalsa Nirbhay Transport Company. The order of the Court below as regards to other persons has already been ordered to be dismissed on 17.02.1998 when the matter was taken up for admission. 5. The order of the Court below is modified to provide for impleadment of the Transport Company referred to above. The civil revision is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 20, 2009 Pankaj*