Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appellant sought to be impleaded as a party in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to a plot of land, claiming personal interest due to his proximity to the plot (!) (!) .

2. The Court held that the appellant was neither a proper nor a necessary party to the PIL because he had shown a personal interest rather than a public interest, and therefore, his inclusion was unwarranted (!) (!) .

3. The appellant's claim was based on his adjacency to the plot and a prior bid for the same plot, but these did not establish a vested or sufficient interest to qualify him as an aggrieved person in the PIL (!) (!) .

4. The appellant's application to be impleaded was filed long after the petition was ripe for hearing, without adequate explanation for the delay (!) .

5. The Court emphasized that personal interest in a land dispute disqualifies an individual from pursuing a PIL, which is meant to address issues of public concern, not individual grievances (!) (!) .

6. The Court dismissed the appeal and the application under the Limitation Act, affirming that the appellant was not entitled to be a party in the PIL and was not an aggrieved person (!) .

7. Overall, the decision underscores that only individuals with a genuine public interest or who are directly affected in a manner recognized as necessary for PIL can be parties to such litigation, and personal interests alone are insufficient (!) (!) .

Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with related legal principles?