C.R. No.3718 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3718 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.9.2010 Mrs. Ratika Kapoor and another ……Petitioners VERSUS Mrs. Nirmal Munjal and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.P. Verma, Advocate for the respondents. 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) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 7.4.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon, whereby the application moved by the plaintiffs (respondents herein), under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for impleading the sub-tenant as one of the defendants and consequential amendment in the plaint, was allowed. C.R. No.3718 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 2. Landlord/respondents have filed a suit for possession and for eviction and recovery of mesne profits and compensa- tion for use and occupation against the defendants (peti- tioners herein) on various grounds. Landlord/respondents in para No.4 of the plaint have stated that defendants/pe- titioners have violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 7.4.2004 by sub-leasing the premises in question to one ‘Hot Dog Simanjo Food Pri- vate Limited’. 3. Initially that sub-tenant was not impleaded as one of the defendants, however, at the subsequent stage, the appli- cation in question was moved, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 7.4.2009. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/tenants vehemently argued that a suit is not maintainable in the absence of necessary party in view of Order 1 Rule 9 C.P.C. He fur- ther states that by allowing the application moved by the plaintiffs/respondents, defence of the petitioners is ad- versely affected. 5. Undisputedly, in the plaint plaintiffs/respondents in para- graph No.4 have pleaded fact of the sub-tenancy. If plaintiffs/respondents are permitted to implead the sub- tenant as one of the defendants, no illegality or jurisdic- C.R. No.3718 of 2009 (O&M) -3- tional error was committed by the learned trial Court. No interference is called for. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 07th September, 2010 JUDGE ashish