CR No. 4952 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 20597-CII of 2009 and CR No. 4952 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.9.2009 M/s Goyal Gram Udyog Samiti and another ....Petitioners. Versus Punjab and Sind Bank and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 20597-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 4952 of 2009 The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 16.5.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by them under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the Member Secretary, Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board as defendant was dismissed. The trial court, in para 6 of its order, had recorded the reasons for declining the said prayer of the defendant-petitioner, which CR No. 4952 of 2009 -2- read thus:- “6. After having considered the submissions raised by Ld. counsel for the parties and perusing the judicial file carefully, I am of the considered view that present application deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, plaintiff is the dominus litis of the suit. He is the master of his suit. He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. Even otherwise, from the perusal of judicial file, it reveals that in the present case, applicant/defendant No.1 filed written statement on 21.5.2004, in which, preliminary objection has been raised that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. But thereafter, uptill filing the present application in the year 2009, applicant/ defendant did not make any effort to make Member Secretary, Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board as party in the present case. Evidence of the plaintiff has already been completed on 11.4.2008 and even after availing 6/7 opportunities, applicant/defendant filed present application just to gain time and in case the present application is allowed at this stage, it would lead to de novo trial and it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Anokha Lal Versus Radhamohan Bansal & Others reported in 1997 (1) LJR 214 that if consequence of addition of CR No. 4952 of 2009 -3- third party in a suit involves a de novo trial, Court should normally disallow the application. Thus, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that present application deserves dismissal. Accordingly, application in question is dismissed.” In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 16.5.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. September 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE