C.R. No. 6163 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6163 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.09.2010 Om Parkash .... Petitioner Versus Tejbir Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Ms. Baljeet Kaur Bhullar, 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging order dated 18.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Panchkula whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in a suit for specific performance was rejected. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1 herein has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging the property in dispute. The basis of the suit is Agreement to Sell executed by respondent No. 2 herein in favour of respondent No. 1. In a suit husband of respondent No. 2 herein has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment contending therein that on behalf of wife (respondent No. 2 herein) he has done every work. Learned trial Court has rejected the application by C.R. No. 6163 of 2010 2 observing that husband of the defendant is neither a proper nor a necessary party. On being asked what interest and locus husband has, learned counsel for the petitioner has one reply to say that husband is watching every interest of the wife and husband is also co-accused in a criminal proceeding with the wife, hence, he is a necessary party. I am not inclined to accept this argument. Petitioner is neither proper nor necessary party. Petition is devoid of merits, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 23.09.2010 JUDGE reena