CMM-1071.08 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 26th March, 2010 Date of Order: 6th April, 2010 CM(M) No. 1071/2008 % 06.04.2010 Manish Dewan & Anr. ... Petitioners Through: Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate Versus Nirmal Nanda & Ors. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate for R-4 JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order dated 21st April, 2008 whereby an application made by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed. 2. An eviction petition was filed by one Smt. Nirmal Nanda, owner/landlord of premises no.20/10, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi against her tenant under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act. This Eviction Petition was withdrawn by her on 7th December, 2004. The petitioners are subsequent owners of this property, who purchased it from Smt. Nirmal Nanda. The sale deed in favour of petitioners was executed on 23rd January, 2005. The petitioners made an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC in “dismissed as withdrawn” eviction petition, for being impleaded as a party as subsequent purchaser and also made a prayer for recalling the order of dismissing the petition as withdrawn. This application was filed on 29th October, 2007. CMM-1071.08 Page 2 of 2 3. I consider that an application for being impleaded as a party in an eviction petition that had already been dismissed as withdrawn by the landlord cannot be entertained and the application was rightly dismissed by the learned ARC. The present petition thus is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. April 6, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn