IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3247 of 2009 Date of decision:29.05.2009 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner versus Indrawanti and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Poonam Tara, 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision assails an order passed on 24.12.2005 dismissing a petition filed by a third party to the rent control proceedings for impeadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Admittedly, no reason has been set forth in the petition for the extra ordinary delay in filing the revision and at the bar, the counsel states that the petitioner was misled into thinking that there was an appeal remedy available and that the petitioner could file revision only now on account of wrong advice given by the counsel. I am not convinced by the reason given and I do not propose to entertain the revision filed. Even otherwise, a third person who claims to be a tenant and in possession shall have a right to protect his possession, if at all the order of eviction passed against another person who is not a tenant. It is for the landlord to secure the relief Civil Revision No.3247 of 2009 - 2 - which he wants against the party who he claims as his tenant and the third party cannot force himself in a litigation and seek for adjudication. No prejudice could be caused even to the revision-petitioner if his contention were to be true for, an order obtained in the absence of such a party cannot obviously bind the party, as well and it would be possible to obstruct delivery. 2. The Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. ( K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.05.2009 sanjeev