( 1 ) A short and simple question has taken considerable time at the lengthy hearing of this Revision Application. The question is whether the trial court was justified in granting the plaintiffs application for joining additional defendants under 0. 1 R. 10 (2) C. P. C. They are the specified authority competent authority and State Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976

( 2 ) THE respondent no. 1 original plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 70 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda for a declaration that the agreement and irrevocable power of attorney dt. 24/03/1977 and the affidavit-cum-declaration dt. 10/02/1978 are valid sub- sisting and binding on the defendant (the petitioner herein) and for due performance of the agreement and other directions for the said purpose and for a permanent injunction against breach of the said contract and irrevocable power of attorney and from interfering and not obstructing the opponent-plaintiff from acting thereunder and representing before the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and for restraining the defendant from making any application for revocation or cancellation of the scheme under the Act and that the defendant be ordered and decreed by mandatory order to cancer the letter written by him to the competent authority or any other authority or authorities intimating to them about the cancellation or revocation and termination of the said agreement and or the irrevocable power of attorney.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had appointed the plaintiff as his constituted attorney by an irrevocable power of attorney and entered into the agreement in respect of the property known as Laxmi Vilas Palace Estate situated in the city of Baroda admeasuring about 707 Acres and in respect of that land a scheme for construction of dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker section of the society as envisaged under sec. 21 (1) of the said Act was to be made and implemented and for that purpose the parties bad entered into the suit agreement and the defendant No. 1 had appointed the plaintiff as his constituted attorney under the irrevocable power of attorney and in pursuance of that authority the plaintiff had got the scheme sanctioned by specified authority.

( 4 ) IT appears that thereafter disputes have arisen and the defendant has terminated the agreement and the power of attorney. In the pleadings filed by the defendant along with an affidavit and documents certain contentions have been raised briefly to the effect that the approval given by the specified authority to the scheme is: illegal inoperative incomplete and on the basis of such approval the competent authority cannot validly make any declaration under sec. 21 of the Act and the guidelines issued by the State Government are ultra vires the Act and not binding to the authorities under the Act. It is contended that under the provisions of sec. 21 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act the competent or of non-residential units or any structures other than the dwelling units for the specified authority has no jurisdiction to sanction scheme involving construction weaker section of the society and any guidelines issued by the government authorising or permitting construction of any non-residential units or structures other than dwelling units for weaker sections of the society are or would be ultra vires the said Act. It is denied that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to consider whether the scheme is approved by the specified authority or whether the scheme as approved is not in accordance with the Act. It is contended by the defendant that the court is bound to consider the question of legality of the Acts sought to be enforced. It is also contended by the defendant that the specified authority and the competent authority have acted beyond their jurisdiction. It is contended that it is not open to the author