Civil Revision No.1455 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1455 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision:27.04.2009 Hoshiyara and others ............Petitioners Vs. Rajinder Singh and another .........Respondents Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the stay of the proceedings in suit had been made and therefore, it is felt necessary to take up the petition and dispose of the same with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and with reference to the records available. 2. An application filed by third parties for impleadment was rejected by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind. The revision is directed against the order of dismissal. 3. The application had been filed by Hoshiyara and others claiming themselves as proprietors of village Ram Rai on a plea that in respect of the very same village there had been another suit pending before Additional Civil Judge, Jind in Civil Suit No.703 of 2000 dated Civil Revision No.1455 of 2003 (O&M) -2- 08.06.1996. According to the applicants, the pendency of the suit was known to them only recently and that any adjudication made by the Court in their absence will have an immediate bearing to the decision in the other case, which they had filed. The trial Court found that the applicants themselves had not shown any cause as to how their presence was material and that decisions which are rendered by Court in a civil action would bind only the parties and that no decision in which applicants themselves were not parties could ever affect their rights. Not being convinced of the particular circumstances that necessitated the impleadment of the third party applicants, the trial Judge dismissed the application. 4. The reasoning adopted by the Court below perfectly conforms to law and I find no reason to give a different view. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 27, 2009 Pankaj*