- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the revisionist aggrieved by the order dated 12-7-2001 of the trial Court, namely, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 3, Mathura, whereby the said Court has dismissed the application 537-K filed by revisionist Anuj Kumar Goswami under Order I, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant- revisionist, who was originally not party to the suit No. 71 of 1992, Radha Sharan Dubey and others v. Ram Niwas and others, has sought for impleadment on the ground that he is a necessary party and the Court has power under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit the impleadment of any person in the suit, if the Court is satisfied that the party applying impleadment is either necessary party, or whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to decide the suit in question.
(2.) IT would not be out of place to mention here that originally one Anjini Kumar was sought to be impleaded as respondent by means an application 297-A, which was rejected by the Court on 10-7-1998. Against the order dated 10-7-1998, a revision was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed by this Court and this Court had issued a direction that the trial Court should decide the suit within a period of one year. The trial Court could not decide the suit as directed by this Court. This time the revisionist- applicant Anuj Kumar filed application for impleadment, as would be clear from the narration of fact in the affidavit filed in support of this revision application. The trial Court has recorded that the present applicant-revisionist has already appeared as witness and it is during the course of the hearing of the said suit, he has filed this application. The case set up by the applicant-revisionist is completely different than what has been set up by the plaintiff. I need not discuss the respective case set up by the parties and the present application. The present revision can be decided on the short question, as the Court has arrived at the conclusion after hearing learned Counsel for the parties that Anuj Kumar Goswami is neither a necessary party, nor a proper party whose presence will enable the Court to decide the controversy. This finding recorded by the Court below is sought to be challenged by the revisionist- applicant, but unsuccessfully the applicant Anuj Kumar has failed to make out a case particularly in the teeth of the observations made by the Court that any of his rights would not be affected because his application for impleadment is being dismissed, as the decree passed in the suit will not be binding on the applicant-revisionist. Apart from above, learned Counsel for the revisionist has failed to demonstrate that trial Court has committed any error of jurisdiction, nor the revisionist has been able to make out a case as is required to be made out under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court, coupled with the fact that on the earlier occasion an application for impleadment was filed, which was rejected by the trial Court and on revision before this Court, the revisionist who was brother of the present applicant, met the same fate. From the discussions above, it is clear that there is no error committed by the trial Court as is required to be present for interference in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited decision that the Court has ample power to permit the impleadment of any party under Order 1, Rule 10. There is no dispute in the proposition, but the decision which has been cited by learned Counsel for the revisionist/applicant clearly demonstrate that the Court has to record a finding that either the applicant is a necessary party, or his presence is necessary for disposal of the controversy involved in the suit. As already observed, the trial Court while rejecting the application out of which the present writ petition has been filed, has categorically recorded that the applicant is neither a necessary party, nor his presence is required by the Court. The Court has further recorded a finding that the sole purpose of filing this application for which this Court has already issued a direction in the earlier revision in July, 1998 is to delay in deciding the suit, though this Court was very specifically said in the aforesaid direction that the trial Court should decide the suit within a period of one year. In these circumstances, for the reasons given above, I do not find any force in this revision. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Revision dismissed. .;