IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2051 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 3rd August, 2009. Mohd. Yusuf Petitioner through Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate Versus Ashok Kumar & Ors. Respondents through Mr. K.L.Kohli, 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 15.1.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment as a respondent in the eviction petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 against proforma respondent No.3 – Mrs. Piyari Begum. The petitioner seeks his impleadment on the ground that he is son of the original tenant – Munshi Khan who has unfortunately expired on 6.1.2009. The eviction petition has been filed against Mrs. Piyari Begum wife of late Munshi Khan without impleading the other legal representatives of the deceased – tenant. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the respondent – landlords states that he has no objection if the petitioner is impleaded as a party- respondent provided that – [i] the petitioner must disclose the particulars of other legal representatives, if any, of the deceased tenant so that all of them can be impleaded together; and [ii] the Rent Controller may be directed to decide the eviction petition at the earliest. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar, that besides the petitioner, there are three more sons of the deceased, namely, Salim Khan, Kayyam Khan and Shammi Khan. He undertakes to provide their addresses to learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 within one week. He also ensures their presence before the Rent Controller on the date fixed. Keeping in view the agreed stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it would avoid multiple litigation if all the legal representatives of the deceased – Munshi Khan are impleaded. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 15.1.2009 is set aside, the petitioner and his above stated three brothers are ordered to be impleaded as respondents No. 2 to 5. The newly added respondents shall not be granted more than one opportunity to file their joint or separate written statement[s] and the witness[es] who have already been examined, shall thereafter be produced by the landlords for further cross-examination on behalf of newly added respondents No. 2 to 5 on one date only. Their request for any further adjournment shall not be entertained. The Rent Controller shall ensure that both the parties are not granted more than three to four opportunities to conclude their entire eviction and the eviction proceedings are decided as early as possible and preferably within one year from today. Disposed of. Dasti. August 03, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE