CR No. 2289 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2289 of 2007 Decided on :01-12-2008 K.B.Lal Singal ....Petitioner VERSUS The Damla Cooperative Society Ltd. ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.9.2006 by which the respondent was permitted to implead the petitioner by name. In a contempt petition which has been preferred by the respondent in the year 1998. The facts of the case may be noticed in brief. On 15th June, 1996 the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) directed the dispute between the respondent and the State of Haryana to be referred to the Arbitrartor according to law. The respondent moved an application on 1.10.97 for getting the matter referred to the Arbitrator pursuant to this order dated 15.6.96. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator on 24.8.98. The respondent preferred a contempt petition alleging violation of the order dated 15.6.96 by contending that there was an inordinate delay in CR No. 2289 of 2007 2 referring the matter to the Arbitrator as a measure of compliance of the said order dated 15.6.96. The contempt petition lingered on for 8 years when an application was moved to rectify the memorandum of parties as the respondent had impleaded the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, B&R as contemnor and had not impleaded him by name. The said application by virtue of the impugned order was allowed, which has resulted in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as he has since retired from service. For a period of 8 years, the respondent did not rectify this mistake and in any eventuality he joined as the Engineer in Chief on 20.5.97 and for the first time file in the present case was placed before him on 13.8.98 and he had immediately referred the dispute to the Arbitrator on 24.8.1998. This Court does not wish to travel to the domain of these facts. Suffice it to say that it was the duty of the respondent to have impleaded the petitioner by name as is the requirement of law. That having not been done and the proceedings having continued for 8 years, the respondent cannot be permitted to rectify the same at this belated stage. Besides, the respondent himself kept sleeping over his rights. The order dated 15.6.1996 was invoked for compliance belatedly as it was for the first time that he moved an application on 1.10.97. When the respondent himself has been responsible for invoking the order in a delayed manner; the consequent delay, if any, cannot be held to be against the petitioner. The revision petition is therefore accepted and the impugned order is set aside. December 1 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge