IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4791of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.8.2009 Amarjit Singh .....Petitioner versus Nirmal Singh & another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikrampreet Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. - - - 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.4791 to 4795 of 2009, filed by the petitioner-landlord who is aggrieved at the order dated 8.5.2009, passed by the Rent Controller, Derabassi whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioner's brother- respondent No.1 has been allowed and he has also been ordered to be impleaded in the eviction petition filed by the petitioner, against respondent Nos.2 & 3. The common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No.4791 of 2009. C.R. No.4784 of 2009 (O&M) 2 While the petitioner asserts that an oral partition has already taken place amongst the legal representatives of late Dev Singh and except respondent No.1, the other legal representatives have acknowledged that partition from time to time, respondent No.1 appears to have disputed the same. In these circumstances, the effective remedy available to the petitioner would be to file a declaratory suit and establish the oral partition, if any, taken place. Owing to the nature of the controversy, the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller wants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner and/or other legal representatives of Dev Singh to file a suit for declaration to establish the factum and for justification of oral partition, if any. If such a suit is filed, the same shall be taken up with the eviction petition filed by the petitioner so that the possibility of contradictory findings of fact can be avoided. Disposed of. Dasti. 24-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE