Anil Kumar, J.

Heard Shri Shiv Shanker Lal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Pankaj Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that revisionist/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent nos.2/Sanjai Nigam and 3/Smt. Suuneeta Nigam registered as Civil Suit No.182 of 2013. In the said matter, an application has been moved on behalf of Smt. Kajal Nigam, sister of defendant Sanjai Nigam on the ground that she has got share in the property in dispute, as such, impleaded as a party in the litigation, allowed by order dated 22.01.2014 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Sitapur.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed under Section 151 C.P.C.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the records.

5. In order to decide the controversy, it will be appropriate to go through the scope and object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC which covers two types of cases : (a) of a party who ought to have been joined but not joined and is a necessary party, and (b) of a party without whose presence the question involved in the case cannot be completely d