IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7307 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.12.2009 Umed and others .....Petitioners versus Ram Karan and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, whereby an application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, for their impleadment as party-defendants, has been dismissed. The petitioners' case is that Risaldar Mamraj Singh was their common ancestral alongwith the respondent-plaintiffs and in case the respondent-plaintiffs are granted the declaratory decree as prayed for by them, the applicant-petitioners would also be entitled to a share in the joint holding. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the C.R. No.7307 of 2009 (O&M) 2 considered view that no interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court for the reasons that the petitioners cannot become party to the suit against the wishes of the plaintiffs, unless it is found that they are a necessary party. Since the petitioners want declaration regarding their own share in the joint holding, the appropriate remedy for them would be to institute their separate suit. With the aforesaid liberty, this revision petition is dismissed. 10-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE