Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The plaintiff revisionists have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the Court of first instance in Original Suit No. 729 of 2005 Ravindra Giri Goswami and another v. Sri Daraganj Ram Leela Committee and another, rejecting the application paper No. 56-A for the impleadment of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (IInd Set) in the revision.

2. The plaintiff revisionists instituted the above suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in respect of the property No. 912/566 Daraganj, Pargana and Tehsil- Sadar, Allahabad city having area of 500 sq. yards more particularly described by the boundaries in the plaint on the allegation that the aforesaid property was in the shape of a house belonging to Rai Radha Raman Agrawal which ultimately devolved upon Durgesh Agrawal from whom it was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 10th February 2005. The house was initially numbered as house No. 614 thereafter as 495, 566 and presently 912/566 and that it has fallen down. The defendants-respondents (Ist Set) have no concern with the said property and even Ram Leela functions organized by the them are held at a site opposite to the Alop Shankari Temple which is different from the property in question. However, defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Ist set) have lately started threatening to dis-mental the boundary wall of the aforesaid property so as to grab the same by forcefully dispossessing the plaintiff revisionists. Thus, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 was claimed restraining defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Ist Set) from dismentaling the boundary wall of the aforesaid house and from evicting the plaintiff revisionists from the same.

3. In the aforesaid suit respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (IInd set) namely Bhagwati Prasad Saxena, Bhuneshwari Prasad Saxena and Gyatri Prasad Saxena moved an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 28.9.2005 praying that they may also be impleaded as defendants to the suit. They claimed themselves to be necessary parties as the property in dispute was said to be part of araji No. 103 village-Alipatti, Tehsil-Sadar, District Allahabad which the plaintiffs revisionists have wrongly described as house No. 912/566. The entire land of the aforesaid araji No. 103 was the property of their ancestors which have devolved upon them. The plaintiff revisionists or even their predecessors described in the suit never had any concern with it. The plaintiff revisionists through the above suit wants to claim title over the above property.

4. The aforesaid application was opposed by the plaintiff revisionists by filing objections primarily on the allegation that it has been moved in order to delay the disposal of the suit. They are not the necessary and proper party entitle to be impleaded as the plaintiff revisionists are not claiming any relief against them.

5. The Court below allowed the above application and directed for impleadment of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (IInd set) in the suit by holding that without impleading them it would not be possible to effectively adjudicate the suit as such they are necessary parties and their non impleadment would give rise to multiplicity of proceedings.

6. The revision was listed before me as tied up on being nominated by the Hon. Chief Justice vide order dated 27.9.2010.

7. I have heard Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff revisionists and Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (II Set). None appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Ist Set).

8. Office report indicates that the notice sent to respondent No. 1 was received by its president and service upon respondent No. 2 was done by affixation.

9. Learned counsel for the parties had agreed for final disposal of the revision at the admission stage in the absence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ((Ist Set).

10. It is admitted to learned counsel for both the conte