IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 6673 of 2006. Date of Decision: 07st January, 2008... Devender ....Petitioner through Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate Versus Kuldeep & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak whereby an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for impleadment of the left-out legal representatives of Sardar Singh, has been dismissed. The facts may be noticed briefly. The grand mother of the original plaintiffs had mortgaged some agricultural land to Sardar Singh (since deceased) – father of the present respondents. Sardar Singh expired on 21st September, 1982 and it appears that one of his sons, Ishwar Singh, also Civil Revision No. 6673 of 2006. ::-2-:: unfortunately expired along with him in a road accident. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession by way of redemption on 24th December, 1996 in which Ishwar Singh deceased son of Sardar Singh was also impleaded as defendant NO. 2 along with his other brothers, namely, Kuldip, Kailash and Davender. The present petitioners claim to have purchased the mortgaged property and have stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, they moved the present application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading Smt. Dharam Kaur widow of Sardar Singh and their two daughters, namely, Shakuntla and Maya. The aforementioned application, however, has been dismissed by the learned Civil Court, giving rise to this revision petition. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application has been dismissed on an erroneous premise as if it was meant to bring on record the legal representatives of defendant NO. 2, i.e., Ishwar Singh, who had died along with his father Sardar Singh. Learned Civil Court has further observed that since under Article 61(A) of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit to redeem and recover possession of the mortgaged property can be filed within 30 years and in the present case the subject property was mortgaged on 30th March, 1972, the suit for redemption against the legal representatives of the deceased – defendant No. 2 was apparently Civil Revision No. 6673 of 2006. ::-3-:: barred by limitation. As noticed above, the application was not moved by the petitioners to implead the legal representatives of defendant NO. 2. Rather, they wanted to implead the left-out legal representatives of deceased Sardar Singh inasmuch as his sons had already been impleaded but his widow and two daughters were not arrayed as defendants. Consequently, and for the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order dated 12th October, 2006 can not sustain. The same is accordingly set aside. Learned Civil Court is directed to re-decide the aforementioned application, in accordance with law, as early as possible and preferably within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. January 07, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE