Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri M. E. Khan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.11.2003 (Annexure No. 6) passed by opposite party No. 1/District Judge, Barabanki and 5.2.2003 (Annexue No. 5) passed by opposite party No. 2/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barabanki, whereby trial Court had directed the plaintiff/petitioner to implead Gaon Sabha as a necessary party.

3. Facts in brief of the present case as submitted by Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate are that Suit No. 312/2000 has been filed by the plaintiffs/revisionists claiming permanent injunction over the land shown with letters ABCD in their plaint sketch map restraining the defendants-respondent/Block Development Officer and U. P. State from constructing any road therein. The plaintiffs have claimed that entire disputed land is their sahan Abadi which has been in their occupation since long and that the defendants have no concern with the same but they are forcibly attempting to construct a road over the same in order to oblige some influential persons of the village.

Defendants contested the suit on the grounds that the disputed land is not the property of the plaintiffs and is a part of the village Parti regarding plot No. 491. The said fact is in the knowledge of the plaintiffs but they concealed the said fact in their plaint. It is further stated that the Gaon sabha is the owner of the disputed property and the plaintiffs had not deliberately made the Gaon Sabha as a party, hence the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the party.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, issue No. 2 has been framed as to whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Gaon Sabha.

5. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 5.2.2003, had decided the issue No. 2 against the plaintiffs and directed them to implead Gaon Sabha as a party because it is a necessary party for adjudicating of the dispute involved in the suit.

6. Order dated 5.2.2003 passed by opposite party No. 2/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barabanki was challenged by the plaintiffs/petitioners by filing Civil Revision No. 19 of 2003. By order dated 7.11.2003, revisional Court had dismissed the said revision with the following observations :

“I have gone through all the above referred case laws which to my mind do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The first three cases relate to Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. wherein the concerned party himself has applied to be impleaded as party to the suit and the Courts have found them not necessary parties to the suit and therefore their applications were rejected. The fourth case law relates to a writ petition wherein the Hon’ble High Court has opined that the applicant’s night was not affected by the writ petition and therefore his application for impleadment was rejected.

In the circumstances of the present case, it is the Court itself which has found that the local Gaon Sabha is a proper party to the suit and therefore it has itself directed the plaintiffs to get their plaints amended and impleaded the Gaon Sabha as a party where the Court cannot be said to have caused any illegality or beyond jurisdiction and therefore in revision, this order should not be varied on the basis of principle mentioned in Order 1 Rule 10 Cr.P.C.”

Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds :

“(a) As per maxim dominus litus, “plaintiff is the best judge to implead a person as a party and no person can be impleaded as a party in a suit against wishes of the plaintiff”. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the cases of Sunil Gupta v. Kiran Girhotra and others, 2008 (26) LCD 656 and Raj Kumari and others v. IVth