Civil Revision No. 5469 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5469 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.9.2009 Nand Singh ......petitioner Versus Baldev Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.K.Garg, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.7.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Patiala. Plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, shifting and disconnecting the motor connection of 7.5 BHP, bearing Account No.DK/1397 installed in the land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.89/198, Khsra No.46//16/8-0, situated at village Bathoi Kalan, District Patiala. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure Civil Revision No. 5469 of 2009 (O&M) 2 for being impleaded as a party. However, the said application was dismissed as none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 19.7.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to inadvertence, correct date had not been noted by the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner and due to this reason, none could appear on behalf of the petitioner on the date the impugned order was passed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The impugned order was passed on 19.7.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner made no effort to inquire about the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Now after more than one year, the present revision petition has been filed. Since nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the application, learned trial Court was left with no other alternative to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 22, 2009 anita