IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7287 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 09, 2010 Bhajan Lal and others …Petitioners Versus Sajjan Singh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Surinder Singh Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioners-third party have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by learned First Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby application moved by the third party- petitioners herein was rejected. Undisputedly, Mr. Teka, the father and grandfather of the petitioners, had filed previous Civil Suit No. 502 of 1982 against Chandia and others, which was decreed on 29.08.1985 in favour of Teka, holding therein that plaintiff – Teka is in possession. First appeal against the judgment dated C.R.No. 7287 of 2010 29.08.1985 was also dismissed. In the present suit, petitioners moved an application seeking impleadment, which was dismissed in default and application recalling the order dismissing the impleadment application in default was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.03.2007. Applicants-petitioners thereafter filed an appeal against the order dismissing the impleadment application, as well as, restoration application, however, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.05.2009 in view of the final decision in the suit. Thereafter, petitioners moved fresh application for impleadment during the pendency of the First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009, which too was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide impugned order. Learned First Appellate Court has also observed in the impugned order that in the earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 592 of 1982, Teka, the father and grand father of the present petitioners, had claimed possession being tenant of the property in dispute. However, in the present case, question of title is involved between the parties. It has further been observed by the learned First Appellate Court that even if Teka or his sons and grandsons are held to be a tenant that would not affect the title of the dispute between the parties. I do not find any illegality or jurisdiction error in the impugned order. 2 C.R.No. 7287 of 2010 Dismissed. November 09, 2010 (Alok Singh) vkd Judge 3