IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1197 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:18.05.2011. Balbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Ravinder Pal Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 13.11.2010 by which application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] for impleading him as respondent No.2, has been declined. In this regard, the learned Rent Controller has observed that the rent note has not been executed in favour of the applicant/petitioner, rather Tarlochan Singh had entered into a compromise on 03.03.2009 and undertook to vacate the demised premises and had even made payment of arrears of rent through cheque dated 15.05.2009. The learned Rent Controller had found that the application was a collusive effort to avoid the consequences of the compromise. It was also observed that it cannot be believed that a father would not be aware of the eviction proceedings being faced by his son. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently but he has failed to bring any circumstance on record from which this Court could opine that he is a necessary party to the pending litigation. In view thereof, I do not find any error in the impugned order and as such, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. May 18, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge