A court has the discretion to implead a party to a suit if the party has a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation and the scope of the litigation will not be enlarged by impleading the party.

1. :- This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated July 20, 1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur by which the application of non-petitioner No. 35, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') dated August 10, 1979 praying for being impleaded as party to the proceedings was allowed.

2. On March 27, 1977 a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code',) was filed for rendition of accounts, declaration, perpetual injunction and possession of seven shops situated outside the Masjid Kaum Helau (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Masjid') by Samast Panch Kaum Helan, Udaipur through the petitioners against the non-petitioners No. 1 to 34 on the ground that non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 Jameel Mohd. and Shafi Mohd. were realising the rent of those seven shops without any authority and they were neither giving amount of the rent nor were entrusting the charge to the executive elected on December 3, 1975. In their written statements defendant Nos. 1 and 2 denied the allegation of unauthorisedly realising the rent and stated that there were two shops belonging to the Masjid (Mosque) and from the rental income five more shops were constructed and there was a plan to construct a Musafirkhana with the rental income of the shops. It was stated in the written statement so filed that the Wakf Board is a necessary party in the suit and without issuing notice to the Board, suit was not maintainable The Board having come to know about the proceedings filed an application on August 10, 1979 for being impleaded as party on the ground that the shops were registered with the Board and it was a necessary party to the proceedings. The learned Judge, as stated earlier, allowed the application. That caused grievance to the petitioners. Hence the revision petition,

3. Notice at the admission stage was given to the non-petitioner No. 35, the Board and Mr. R.L. Maheshwari appeared on its behalf.

4. I heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case available with the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the suit shops not being the property of the Masjid could not have been registered with the Board without the permission of the whole community. That, the suit was filed on March 27, 1976 and the said registration with the Wakf Board was made on August 10, 1977. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this registration, subsequent to the filing of the suit, will not in any way effect the proceedings. That the Board cannot, be considered to be a proper party even, what to talk of necessary party because the shops mentioned in the registration certificate are some different property belonging to the Masjid and not the suit shops.

6. Mr. RL-Maheshwari, learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 35 referred to Sections 55, 57 and 59 of the Waks Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and submitted that it was the duty of the Court to issue notice to the Board and if the Court failed to do so and the Board filed the application for being impleaded as a party the Court had rightly allowed the application. Mr. R.L. Maheshwari, raised the objection about the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that implead-ing of a party under Order 1, R. JO of the Code is a discretionery power with the Court and such an order is not revisable. Another argument advanced by Mr. R.L. Maheshwari was that the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the three clauses of Section 115 of the Code. That, the proviso added by the Amended Act of 1976 imposes restriction on the Court to interfere in revision in orders though coming within the ambit of Section 115(1) but not covered by Clause (a) or (b) of the proviso. Dealing with the merits of the case, Mr. R.L. Maheshwari contended that because the