IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5762 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.2.2011 Ram Saran Bhatia … Petitioner Versus Ashok Sharma and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the respondents. Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 29.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby the application under Order 22 Rule 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure ( in short ‘CPC’) was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that application filed under Order 22 Rule 2 CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of Rajinder Kumar Sharma-deceased was liable to be dismissed as the said person was not proprietor of the firm i.e. M/s Arun Enterprises. Rather Virendera Kumar Restogi was the proprietor of the firm and he had executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of Rajendra Kumar Sharma on 30.1.1970. Hence, the legal representatives of the power of attorney holder could not be brought on record. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petition for ejectment had been filed by Rajendra Kumar Sharma in his own capacity as Rajendra Kumar Sharma was the sole proprietor of M/s Arun Enterprises. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Rajendra Kumar Sharma had filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction Act), 1973 against the defendants. It was averred in the petition that Rajendra Kumar Sharma was the landlord and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the tenant under CR No.5762 of 2010 him. A perusal of the ejectment petition reveals that the same had been filed by Rajendra Kumar Sharma on his own behalf and not as Attorney of Virendera Kumar Restogi. In the application under Order 22 Rule 2 CPC (Annexure P-2) it has been averred that Rajendra Kumar Sharma was the sole proprietor of M/s Arun Enterprises. The Special Power of Attorney attached with the petition as Annexure P-3, relates to the year 1970. However, the petition for ejectment has not been filed on the basis of the said Special Power of Attorney. In these circumstances, the trial Court had rightly allowed the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Rajendra Kumar Sharma as he had not filed the petition as a attorney of Virendera Kumar Restogi. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge 14.02.2011 sd 2