The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs the impleadment of parties in a suit.

G.C.Garg, J.

1. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction tinder Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code against Rai Singh and others on August 26,1986. Parties to the suit concluded their respective evidence and after arguments were heard in the, suit, petitioners herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for being im pleaded as defendant in the suit on the ground that he is in continuous possession for the last about 20 years as a tenant under Rai Singh and that he is not only a proper but a necessary party in the suit.

2. The trial Court on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit as the plaintiffs are only seeking relief against the defendants on the respective claims and the plaintiffs have categorically stated in reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. that they did not seek any relief against the applicant and ultimately dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence this revision at the instance of the petitioner. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction tinder Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil -Procedure Code against Rai Singh and others on August 26,1986. Parties to the suit concluded their respective evidence and after arguments were heard in the, suit, petitioners herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for being impleaded as defendant in the suit on the ground that he is in continuous possession for the last about 20 years as a tenant under Rai Singh and that he is not only a proper but a necessary party in the suit.

3. The trial Court on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit as the plaintiffs are only seeking relief against the defendants on the respective claims and the plaintiffs have categorically stated in reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. that they did not seek any relief against the applicant and ultimately dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence this revision at the instance of the petitioner.

4. In response to the notice of motion, some of the respondents have put in appearance through Mr. OP. Goyal, Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. S.K. Bansal, Advo cates.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court, especially when Mr. O.P. Goel Adv. appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents has taken a candid stand that the plaintiffs will not disturb the possession of the petitioner only in case, he is found to be in possession of the land in dispute prior to the date of the filing of the suit and in that eventuality they will dispossess him in due course of law. Mr. Goel specifically brought out that in case the petitioner came into possession of the land after the filing of the suit then he would be bound by the decision in the suit.

6. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations.