-1- Civil Revision No.8469 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 18, 2011. Civil Revision No.8469 of 2010 (O&M). Vinay Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS Tirath Ram and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr.Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 -2- Civil Revision No.8469 of 2010 (O&M). read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for his (petitioner's) impleadment as a party - respondent No.2 in the appeal before the lower appellate Court filed by Ram Parshad (respondent No.2 herein) against the final decree passed by the trial Court in favour of Tirath Ram (respondent No.1 herein) has been dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference in the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner Vinay Kumar is none else than the son of Ram Parshad against whom the final decree was passed by the trial Court and he (Ram Parshad) went in appeal against the said decree before the lower appellate Court. The decree was passed by the trial Court in favour of Tirath Ram who is real brother of Ram Parshad. In the preliminary decree, only Ram Parshad and his brother Tirath Ram were held entitled to the partition of the suit property. It appears that the petitioner moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of his father Ram Parshad just to delay the proceedings and that is why his (Ram Parshad's) counsel before the lower appellate Court made a statement that he had no objection in case the petitioner was impleaded as a party- respondent No.2. The lower appellate Court has rightly declined the prayer made by the petitioner. -3- Civil Revision No.8469 of 2010 (O&M). Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the lower appellate Court will not be influenced by anything said while deciding this petition. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 18, 2011. JUDGE ak