Civil Revision No.2158 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2158 of 2006 Date of decision : 20-7-2009 Ishwar Chand ....Petitioner VERSUS Ram Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Pradeep Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 17. Mr. Rajneesh Narula, Advocate, for respondent No.28. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (Oral) The petitioner challenges an order dated 20th February, 2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kurukshetra dismissing his application dated 15-02-2006 for deletion of the names of plaintiffs added in the amended title. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the suit was filed in representative capacity, but respondents No.4 to 22 have been impleaded as plaintiffs without passing of any order by the trial Court in terms of sub-rule (3) of Order 1 Rule 8 allowing them to become parties. It is submitted that in the absence of any prayer for being impleaded as parties or any such application the trial Court Civil Revision No.2158 of 2006 -2- was remiss in dismissing the petitioner’s application. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that respondents No.4 to 22 appeared before the trial Court through their counsel, in response to the publication, and, therefore, were rightly impleaded as parties. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Sub-rule (3) of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code reads as follows:- "(3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted, or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit." It is beyond cavil that any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted or defended may "apply" to the court to be made a party to such suit. Inherent in the provision of sub-rule (3) is an obligation on the part of such person to apply and a duty on the part of a court to implead a person, who prima facie, establishes that the suit has been filed on his behalf or is being so defended. In the present case, there is no material on record to suggest that the respondents ever applied for or were granted permission in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 sub-rule (3). Before a person is impleaded as a party, it is necessary for him to apply and for a Court for grant of permission in terms of sub-rule (3). The procedure for "applying" is however left to the discretion of the court. The impugned order does not disclose any reference to any permission granted by the trial Court and as neither counsel is in a position to refer to any such order, I have no Civil Revision No.2158 of 2006 -3- option but to accept the revision petition, set aside the order dated 20-2-2006 and direct the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kurukshetra to decide the application afresh and in accordance with law within 15 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that any expression of opinion as to the merits would have no bearing on the rights of the parties. (RAJIVE BHALLA) 20-07-2009 JUDGE manju