IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 614 of 2009 Date of decision : 24.2.2010 ____________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners. Versus Vidya Sagar & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioners : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 9. Mrs. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.10. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No.2, Ghumarwin in CMA No.286/09 in CS No.165/1 of 2000, rejecting the application of petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Order 2 Rule 2 CPC on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2000 and the application for impleadment was filed after nine years and no explanation has been given for late filing of the application. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners ______________________ ¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 that at the time of filing of the suit all persons mentioned in the jamabandi inadvertently could not be impleaded as defendants in the suit. On noticing the fact that some of the persons who are the co- sharers have been left, the present application was filed. The suit is for declaration. 2. It has not been denied on behalf of the respondents that the persons who are intended to be impleaded as defendants in the suit are not co-sharers with petitioners in the suit land. No doubt the suit was filed in the year 2000, but it has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that till now even issues have not been framed. In other words the suit is still at the stage of framing of the issues. In view of the fact that suit has been filed for declaration and the persons who are intended to be impleaded as defendants in the suit are co- sharers no effective decree can be passed in absence of those persons. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the persons mentioned in paragraph-3 of the application are allowed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. 3. In so far as prayer of abandoning the claim of petitioners with respect to khasra Nos.238 and 259 is concerned, the petitioners have right to abandon their claim with respect to khasra Nos.238 and 259. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he has instructions to abandon the claim of the petitioners in the suit with respect to khasra Nos.238 and 259. Accordingly, prayer with respect to khasra Nos.238 and 259 is also granted. The application for impleadment was filed late, therefore, the respondents are entitled to 3 some costs which is quantified to Rs.1000/- . The cost is to be paid in the learned trial Court. 4. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 19.3.2010. The record of the learned trial Court be sent back immediately, so as to reach before the date fixed. The suit was filed in the year 2000. It is quite old suit. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably on or before 31.3.2011. The petition is allowed on above terms. 5. In view of disposal of main petition the CMP No.885 of 2009 is rendered infructuous. Interim order dated 30.10.2009 stands vacated. February 24, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (sks) Judge.