Purchasers of adjoining land from a coloniser, where the land in dispute is shown as a park in the plan prepared by the coloniser, are interested persons and their impleadment in a suit relating to the land in dispute is necessary.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Civil Judge, Aligarh, rejecting the application of the revisionists under O. 1, R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded in Suit No. 661 of 1990 : Mohd. Yunus Khan and another v. Smt. Shahnaz Hussain and others.

( 2 ) THE opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a suit against other opposite parties claiming that they purchased the land in suit from Azizuddin and the defendant-opposite-parties 3 to 7 are interfering in their possession and constructions over the land purchased by them. The defendant-opposite-parties alleged that Azizuddin had actually left the land in suit as a park and had a carved out twenty plots around the land. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were not entitled to make constructions over the land in suit.

( 3 ) THE revisionists moved an application for their impleadment on the ground that the land in suit has been shown as a park in their sale deeds. They are interested in the park, for it is necessary for better enjoyment of their land. It was also urged that if the park ceases to exist, then this will result in untold inconvenience to the inhabitants of the locality as well as the revisionists.

( 4 ) THE opposite parties 1 and 2 contested the application. They alleged that the land in dispute was never a park. The ownership vested in Aziuddin. It was urged that the revisionists were neither necessary nor proper party for being impleadment in the suit.

( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the revisionists were neither necessary nor proper party. It was also held that the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction and nobody can be impleaded in the suit. The learned Civil Judge also came to the conclusion that the revisionists were neither necessary nor proper party. It was also held that the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction and nobody can be impleaded in the suit without consent of the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge also came to the conclusion that the revisionists have no concern with the land in dispute, therefore, they have no right to be impleaded.

( 6 ) IT has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionists that the land in dispute has been shown as park in the plan prepared by Azizuddin. Our attention was drawn to Annexure 1" to the application under Section 151, C. P. C. It was urged that a land measuring 190 feet long and 57. 3" wide was left as a park. The houses of the revisionists are situated around this land. The plaintiffs have purchased this very land of park. Consequently, if the constructions are made over this land, then environmentally the revisionists would actually be affected. It was urged that the revisionists have an interest in the land in dispute and they should be impleaded as defendants.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has drawn our attention to a case in Anurag Sharma v. Xth Addl. Distt. Judge, 1991 All CJ 244 and also a case in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. Muddappa, (1991) 4 SCC 54. Our attention was specifically drawn to paragraphs 22 and 29 of Bangalore Medical Trusts case (supra ). Relying on these paragraphs, it was urged that preservation of environment is the necessity of the day. Hence in all constructional activities the Courts should consider the question of environment and if it Gomes to the conclusion that by certain constructional activity of a party the environment is likely to be actually affected, then it should intervene and permit a party claiming a relief on the basis of environment to intervene in a suit where a party is allegedly violating the very principles of maintaining environment clean and healthy and indulges in undesirable constructions.

( 8 ) IN the case of Bangalore Medical Trust (supra), the land in dispute shown as park was carved out and left as such by Development Authority. Later it was allotted to some persons for constructing a hospital. In a writ challenging the action of the authorit