Civil Revision No.1745 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1745 of 2009 Decided on : March 30, 2009 Arya Bal Bharti Public School ... Petitioner VERSUS Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Extraordinary supervisory provisions as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are sought to be invoked by the petitioner Arya Bal Bharti Public School (herein referred as `petitioner') for quashing the order dated 6.3.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading in Civil Suit No.28 of 1999, titled “Arya Bal Bharti Parbandh Samiti vs. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana Dayanand Madh Rohtak and others.” The main contention set up by the applicant – petitioner is that Arya Bal Bharti Parbhandh Samiti (herein referred as ` respondent') Civil Revision No.1745 of 2009 [ 2 ] has filed suit against Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana and others claiming their rights to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Arya Bal Bharti School, GT Road, Panipat and since the School sought to be managed has not been impleaded as party, therefore, its rights are prejudiced and, thus, it be impleaded as a defendant – party. Having perused the impugned order, it is revealed that the suit has been pending since 1999, but the petitioner had not taken any step since then to become a party to it. Secondly, the School appears to have been represented through the defendants and also that it does not appear to be necessary party, it may be observed that the plaintiff is the dominus litis of the suit. If the petitioner is found to be a necessary party at the end, in the absence of which, the real question into controversy, cannot be decided, the Trial Court would draw adverse inference. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. March 30, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE