( 1 ) THE question for decision in this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is : whether Gaon Sabha Khera Delhi through its Pradhan (respondent No. 9) should be impleaded as a deantant the suit filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 1 to 8?

( 2 ). Briefly the facts arc that the petitioner/plaintiff on 24. 1. 1978 filed a suit against respondents No. 1 to 8 for permanent injunction restraining them from interferring in his possession of the Gher in suit alleging that he and the defendants were members of the Proprietory body of the village Khera Kalan, Delhi, that a plot of land belonging to him in the abad Deh of the said village decended to him from his ancestors and that the same was and is being used as a gher by his ancestors for storing their agricultural products and tethering of their catties, that the Gher was bound by a boundry wall of about 8 feet with a Gate which could be locked and that there has been a well at a distance of about 4 feet from the said Gher which wag made over to the public for public usage. It is further alleged that there are thoroughfares on all sides of said Gher, that defendants No. 1 to 4 have their houses on the Eastern side while defendants No. 4 to 8 have their houses on the Western side of his Gher. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 5, a sub-Inspector in police joined hands with other defendants with a view to divert him from the said Gher, that defendants influenced the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha to take steps against him and therefore, the Pradhan interferred with the plaintiffs possession with the result that the plaintiff in July 1977 filed a suit for injunction against the Gaon Sabha Kera Kalan, Delhi. The Pradhan of that Gaon Sabha accepted the factual possession and ownership of the plaintiff. On the statement of the Gaon Sabha that it would not interfere in the plaintiff s possession, the previous suit of the plaintiff against Gaon Sabha was disposed of on 20. 9. 77 by the Subordinate Judge, Delhi. The plaintiff further alleges that as Gaon Sabha did not act according to the wishes of the defendants, they on the night intervening 23/24th December, 1977 demolished the boundary wall of the Gher and removed articles belonging to him and thus they interferred in his possession. A report was lodged but on account of the influence of the defendant No. 5 who is a Sub-Inspector in the police, no action was taken. The plaintiff therefore, alleges that he is owner in possession of the Gher and that the defendants have no right or interest to interfere with his possession, that they are under an obligation not to disturb his peaceful possession.

( 3 ) THE defendants in their written statement allege that there is no Gher in existence as alleged by the plaintiff, that Gaon Sabha is a necessary party besides other defences. Various issues were framed by the trial Court on 12-10-78. Issues No. 1, 2 and 3 are as follows :

(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable for non-joining of necessary partics ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the Gher in dispute ? (3) Whether there existed no cause of action in favour of the plaimiff due to the non-existence of Gher/plot in dispute ?

( 4 ) ON 24-10-79 Gaon Sabha Khera Kalan made an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a defendant alleging that the site in question is a common thoroughfare, that it belongs to the Gaon Sabha, that the plaintiff in collusion with the village Pradhan in 1977 filed a suit in which the Pradhan consented to the decree being passed against Gaon Sabha, that the Court dismissed the earlier suit of the plaintiff against Gaon Sabha on its undertaking. It is further alleged that the previous suit was a collusive one and that Gaon Sabha has a right to retain it as a thoroughfare. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 28-8-81 directed the plaintiff to implead Gaon Sabha as defendant No. 9 in the case