Civil Revision No. 154 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 154 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.11.2010. M/s Karanchi through Smt. Anita and another ....Petitioners Versus Smt. Madhu Jain and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adarh Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 1. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner pleads that he is a necessary party in the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner is that it being the tenant in the demised premises, is necessary to be impleaded as respondent which plea has been controverted by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 who has brought to the notice of this Court that one Mr. Ankur son of Parkash Chand is already impleaded as respondent and the petitioner M/s Karanchi through Smt. Anita and Mr. Ankur, as an entity, cannot be permitted to be impleaded as respondents for simple reason that it has not been specified as to what is the status of the petitioners and even if their best case is taken it may be an un- registered partnership of which Ankur is a partner and is already on record as respondent. He thus contends that the petition is merely a ploy to delay the proceedings which is also evident from the fact that at no earlier stage of the proceedings was any attempt made to get the petitioner impleaded as a necessary party and it is only after examination of respondent-landlord was conducted that this application has been moved. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned order. The petitioner is the dominus-litus and therefore has a right Civil Revision No. 154 of 2010 (O&M) 2 to choose the set of respondents against whom he wishes to proceed and cannot be forced to implead a person as a respondent and in the event of the respondent perceiving a cause of action in his favour he has the remedy to invoke the law in his favour in separate proceedings. In any eventuality the contention of learned counsel for the respondents merits acceptance. As the status of the petitioner as an entity has not been clearly specified and further even if it is the partnership, Ankur who is stated to be one of the partner is already on record. The application also seems to be a malafide exercise and indicates that the petitioner probably is interested in delaying the proceedings. There is thus no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 15.11.2010 JUDGE Reema