IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2520 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 17.03.2008 Jatinder Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate. vs. Surjit Singh ....Respondent(s) through Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Amritsar whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioner-plaintiffs for amendment of their plaint and for impleadment of some more defendants has been dismissed. While dismissing the application, the learned trial Court has observed that the persons sought to be impleaded are neither necessary nor proper parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, contends that the application was moved in view of the objection taken by the respondent-defendant in his written statement that the suit was bad for non- joinder of the necessary parties. Learned counsel for the respondent now submits that he accepts C.R. No.2520 of 2007 -2- the finding given by the learned trial Court in the impugned order that the persons sought to be impleaded by the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party. In other words, the preliminary objection taken by the respondents in their written statement regarding non-joinder of necessary parties is deemed to have been given up. In this view of the matter, the revision petition has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. March 17, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE