Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—I have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ranjit Asthana for the contesting respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioners instituted an Original Suit No. 160 of 1986 for permanent prohibitory injunction against Sumer (defendant No. 1) and Ram Milan (defendant No. 2) so as to ensure that they do not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in suit and do not raise any constructions or cut away the trees standing thereon. The disputed land was described in the plaint by letters A, B, C, D alleged to be located over plot No. 2486/2, having an area of 80 Kari. It was claimed that the petitioners were owners in possession of the land in suit as well as the trees and well standing/located thereon and that the defendants had no right to interfere. The defendants filed written statement denying title and possession of the plaintiffs and claiming that the trees, etc. standing over the land in suit were owned and possessed by them. It was claimed that the land in suit was their “Sehan Abadi” over which they had been in possession since prior to abolition of “Zamindari” and, therefore, the same had vested in them by virtue of Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

3. A Survey Commissioner was appointed by the Court, who submitted a report (Annexure CA.1) wherein it was stated that by taking two fixed points, situated in plot Nos. 2623 and 2327, the property in suit was sought to be identified but it was not possible to demarcate the area of 80 kari pertaining to plot No. 2486. In the map appended to the Survey Commission Report, the house of the defendant and the house of Sudarshan Yadav (not party in the suit), who is the contesting respondent No. 2 herein, was shown to be located adjoining the suit property.

4. It appears that Sumer (the defendant No. 1) died and later, the petitioners (the plaintiffs to the suit) and Ram Milan (the defendant No. 2-respondent No. 3 herein) entered into a compromise where under portion towards the North of the line A-B denoted in the site plan (Paper No. 15Ga2), with standing trees thereon, was to be settled with the plaintiffs whereas the southern portion was to be settled with the defendant. The said compromise was verified by the Court but before a decree could be passed in terms of the compromise, an application (No. 79 Ga2) was filed by Sudarshan Yadav (the contesting respondent No. 2) seeking impleadment as defendant. In the said application, it was stated that the applicant was the owner in possession of the land in suit and the trees, etc. standing thereon and that the defendant and the plaintiffs were in collusion with each other to grab applicant’s property, therefore, the applicant being a proper and necessary party/affected person be impleaded as defendant.

5. Trial Court, vide order dated 27.1.1994, rejected the impleadment application on three grounds :

(a) that the compromise between the parties having already been verified, it was not a stage at which, impleadment application could be considered;

(b) that the plaintiff is the dominus litus (Master of the Suit) and cannot be forced to contest the suit against any person against whom he does not wish to contest; and

© that in a suit of prohibitory injunction, the decree would not bind a non-party and as it is always open for the non-party to file a separate suit if his rights are affected, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the applicant on rejection of his application for impleadment.

6. The contesting respondent No. 2 challenged the order dated 27.1.1994 by filing revision. The revisional Court, vide judgment and order dated 1.11.1994, set aside the order dated 27.1.1994 and allowed the impleadment application No. 79Ga2. Against the revisional Court’s order dated 1.11.1994, the instant petition has been filed.

7. Assailing the revisional Court’s order, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners submitted that the revision