IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.456 of 2009. Decided on August 06, 2009. Savita Bhanot .. Petitioner VERSUS Bidhi Chand and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Bidhi Chand has filed a suit for permanent injunction against Rakesh Bhanot, restraining him to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the shop/property in dispute and also for restraining him from interfering in the business affairs of M/s Kamla Sweet Shop. The petitioner claiming herself to be a partner on the basis of partnership deed dated 01.04.2004, seeks to be impleaded as a party in the litigation by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground the plaintiff-respondent has not sought any relief against the petitioner and that the suit for injunction can be decided without presence of the petitioner, as such, she is not proper or necessary party. . . . 1 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rights of the petitioner on the basis of her share would be prejudiced in case she is not permitted to be impleaded as a party. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an affidavit dated 28.03.2008, alleged to have been executed by Bidhi Chand, admitting that the petitioner is still a partner in the partnership Concern and he has admitted his pecuniary liability in the said affidavit Annexure P-4 (two leaves). I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents. Since the plaintiff-petitioner who is dominus litus has not raised any dispute pertaining to the partnership Concern and has caused no prejudice, in any manner, to the rights, if any, accruing from the terms of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2004, it will not be expedient, in the interest of justice, to enable the petitioner to be impleaded as a party by allowing her application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. No ground is made out for interfering in the impugned order dated 17.12.2008. The petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner accruing to her through the alleged Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2004. Any observation made in this order will not prejudice the rights of the parties in the alleged Partnership Deed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 06, 2009. rka . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4