The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for impleading a party to the suit must be bona fide and not filed with an ulterior motive to reopen the matter.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated April 23,1985, whereby the application field on behalf respondent Mahant Shukar Puri for impleading him as a party to the suit under O.1, R.10, Civil P.C., (hereinafter called the Code), was allowed.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on March 31, 1981. The case was fixed for arguments on August 24, 1984, when an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by defendant Sukhdev Puri. The said application was declined by the trial Court vide order dated August 28, 1984. Civil Revn, Petn. No.2210 of 1984 (Mahant Sukhdev Puri V/s. Smadh Baba Mauzpuri), was dismissed vide this Court order dated November 9, 1984.* It appears the defendant having failed in his designs to prolong the litigation, got the present application filed under O.1, R.10 of the Code, from one Mahant Shukar Puri on December 17, 1984. According to the applicant, he came to know that the plaintiffs and the defendants were alleging themselves to be the Mahants of the Smadh Baba Mauzpuri. As a matter of fact, it was he who was managing the affairs of the Samadh after the death of Mahant Sudh Puri and was, thus, directly interested in the decision of the case. Therefore, it was prayed that he being a necessary party be impleaded as such to the suit. That application was contested on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant did not file any reply to the said application. However, the learned trial Court found that if the applicant was impleaded as a party to the suit, then the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendants would not be prejudiced. It was also found that the litigation was a declaratory one as regards status or a legal character of the parties. So, the addition of the applicant as a party to the suit would enable the Court to determine the controversy effectually and completely. Consequently, the application was allowed vide impugned order. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition in this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application was filed at the instance of the defendant who had failed earlier up to this Court in Civil Revn. Petn. No 2210 of 1984, decided on November 9, 1984 (reported in (1985) 1 Ren CJ 79). Thus, argued the learned counsel, the application was not bona fide. In any case if the applicant Mahant Shukar Puri was interested in the litigation, he could file a separate suit to establish his right to the office. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shukar Puri, contended that in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application and there was no ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction therewith.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that if once the Court comes to the conclusion that the application filed by Mahant Shukar Puri under O.1 R.10 of the Code was not a bona fide one, but was filed at the instance of the defendant who had failed to amend his written statement up to this Court, then, in that situation, the application cannot be allowed. In the present case, the conduct of the defendant Sukhdev Puri is quite evident. The suit is pending since March, 1981. He moved the application for amendment of the written statement at the time of the hearing of the final arguments, having failed to seek the amendment, it seems, he got the present application filed by Mahant Shukar Puri on December 17, 1984. Thus, the application having been filed with an ulterior motive and being not a bona fide one, was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. By making the application under O.1 R.10 of the Code, the defendant virtually wants to reopen the whole matter again which he cannot be allowed on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the applicant Mahant Shukar Puri