Civil Revision No.1938 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1938 of 2009 Date of Decision:05.10.2010 United Church of Northern India & anr. .... petitioners Versus United Church of Northern India Trust Association & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondents No.2,3A to 3E **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): As per the averments made in this petition, respondent No.4 was ordered to be ejected vide judgement dated 17.01.1996 by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. Plaintiff-respondents No.2 and 3 have challenged the aforesaid ejectment order by way of present suit which is pending in the trial Court During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, respondent No.1 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment. The aforesaid application was not contested by the plaintiff-respondents No.2 and 3. However, the petitioners contested the aforesaid application. Vide impugned order, trial Court allowed the application and impleaded the Civil Revision No.1938 of 2009 2 respondent No.4 as a defendant in the suit. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners (defendants in the suit) before this court on various grounds. It is well settled that plaintiff is the dominus litus of the suit. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not objected to the impleadment of respondent No.4. Now the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1 is as to whether United Church of Northern India has ceased to function and now United Church of Northern India Trust Association (respondent No.1) is representing the property in question. Since both the parties are claiming their rights over the suit property, the same can only be decided by the Civil Court after taking evidence. In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is disposed of with the observations that the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all just/legal objections before the trial Court. Record of the trial court be returned, forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.10.2010. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, let the trial Court decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 05.10.2010 neenu