CR No. 5196 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5196 of 2008 Date of decision:- 30.8.2010 Nirmal Dass Dua ......petitioner vs. Rohtas Sharma and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 3. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by learned trial Court on 25.7.2007 whereby Harbans Lal son of Kirpa Ram was ordered to be impleaded as Proprietor of defendant-Firm i.e. M/s Deepak Bricks Industries. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 11.6.2008 whereby the application for review of the order dated 25.7.2007 was dismissed. Plaintiff-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 5 kanals. An application was filed by the plaintiff-respondents so as to implead Harbans Lal as the Proprietor of Defendant-Firm. During the pendency of the said application, Harbans Lal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code which was allowed by the learned trial Court on 25.7.2007 and consequently, the plaintiff's application for amendment of the title of the plaint was CR No. 5196 of 2008 -2- withdrawn. After the name of the petitioner as Proprietor of the defendant-Firm was deleted, the petitioner moved an application for review of the order. The said application was dismissed on 11.6.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the plaintiff has impleaded him as a Proprietor of the Firm, his name could not be struck off as a representative of the Firm. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has a right to implead such party against whom the plaintiff seeks remedy. He has a dominus litus. The plaintiff has now sought that the Proprietor- firm impleaded as defendant No. 1 is to be represented by Harbans Lal. This substitution of a person to represent Defendant-firm will not effect any right of the petitioner if any or in respect of the subject matter of the suit property. However, the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a defendant as a Proprietor of the Firm, if the plaintiff chooses not to claim any relief against him. In view of the said fact, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below. However, it is clarified that any order passed in the suit, at the instance of the plaintiff, will not effect the rights of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. If the petitioner has any claim or rights, it shall be open to him to establish his right in such property, in such a manner, as is admitted in law. Civil Revision stands disposed of in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30.8.2010 preeti