Civil Revision No.334 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.334 of 2009 Date of decision : 6 .1.2010 Prem Parkash .....Petitioner Versus Abhishek Gupta and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for respondent no.3. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner who applied for impleadment as a party to the ejectment petition pending consideration before the learned Rent Controller on the basis of attainment of a locus standi in the light of judgment dated 28.5.2004, was declined by the learned Rent Controller by observing that the judgment dated 28.5.2004 had not yet attained finality as an appeal had been filed by the aggrieved party against it. The precise plea raised by the petitioner herein was that the premises under dispute had fallen to his share in the light of the partition-decree aforementioned. The learned Rent Controller did not, at all, advert to the correctness or otherwise of certain other averments made in the course of the plea for impleadment. There is no controversy that an appeal and three objection petitions against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2004 came to be filed by four persons who claimed to be co-owners of the property which Civil Revision No.334 of 2009 -2- **** had been ordered to be partitioned vide that judgment. The appeal filed by co-owner namely Rajnish Gupta was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.4.2007. Two cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn; whereas the 3rd cross objections were dismissed in default on 27.2.2009. There also is no controversy that the appeal aforementioned and the cross- objections had been filed by parties other than the respondents who was not a party to the main cause wherein judgment dated 28.5.2004 came about. In view of the facts noted above, it is apparent that the judgment dated 28.5.2004 has attained finality. That being the only foundational premise for declining of plea raised by the petitioner for impleadment, the file has to compulsively go to the learned Rent Controller for disposal of other pleas which the petitioner has made in the course of the plea for impleadment. Both the learned counsel agree that this is the only permissible course in view of the fact that the learned Rent Controller had opted to refrain from even adverting to those pleas in the course of the impugned order. In the light of foregoing discussion and the consensual factual position, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 24.10.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, shall stand set aside. Learned Rent Controller shall proceed to dispose of the plea for impleadment (filed by the petitioner herein) on merits thereof. The parties, through the learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 20.1.2010. January 6, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No