1. This revision has been filed against the interlocutory order passed in HMOP.No. 30 of 2002, impleading the second respondent herein as co-respondent.

2. The first respondent herein filed the above OP for divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion. The petitioner herein filed her counter denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the first respondent filed this application in I.A.No. 31 of 2003 to implead the second respondent alleging that he is the paramour and that his wife (the petitioner herein) is living with him in adultery. According to the first respondent, the presence of the second respondent was necessary for effective adjudication for the main controversy.

3. The petitioner herein resisted the said application on the ground that it is not necessary to implead the second respondent and the first respondent having failed to raise specific pleadings and having fai1ed to set out specific acts of adultery and having failed to speak about the same when he was in the box as a witness, cannot now fill up the lacuna in his case by impleading the second respondent.

4. The Court below came to the conclusion that the first respondent had stated in the