- (1.)The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order dated 15.03.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amloh, vide which the application filed by respondent No.3 Union Bank of India, Branch Mandi Gobindgarh, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the 'CPC') for impleading it as a party to the suit has been allowed.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against respondents No.1 & 2 as he is a tenant in the house owned by respondents No.1 & 2. The said house was let out by respondents No.1 & 2 to the petitioner vide rent note dated 04.12.2014. He is regularly paying the rent against the receipts. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the suit, the petitioner had claimed the relief of permanent injunction only against respondents No.1 & 2. Respondent No.3 is not directly related to the suit filed by the petitioner. If there is any dispute regarding loan or mortgage of the property, it is between the respondents.
The presence of respondent No.3-Bank is not required for the adjudication of present suit for injunction filed by the petitioner. Thus, he contended that the impugned order is illegal.

(3.)I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.