MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred challenging the order dt. 22. 11. 2000 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Bundi in Civil Suit No. 2/98 by which the application filed by the Devasthan Department under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of party was allowed.
(2.) THE contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are:- (1) that impleadment of Devasthan Department will defeat the entire scope of the controversy involved in the proceedings before the trial Court as the plaintiff respondent in connivance with the Devasthan Department wants to get the title decided in his favour and (2) that the defendant petitioner has already filed the written statement to the suit which was filed in the year 1998 and consequent upon impleadment of Devasthan Department it would enlarge the scope of the suit which is permanent injunction in nature and in consequential of which the petitioner's right would be prejudiced since the nature of defence will change. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the findings recorded by the trial Court with reference to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar and examined the legal position on the subject. Prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion that before a party is allowed to be impleaded, requirements of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC have to be satisfied primarily. The provisions of sub-rule (2) of Order 10 CPC stipulates, as under:- " (2) Court may strike out or add parties.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. " Hence, it is upon the discretion of the court to add a party with or without the application. Hence, filing of formal application is also not necessary in the case where a party is required to be impleaded if the circumstances so warrant. In the instant case, the trial Court has given very reasoned order by expressly giving finding to the following effect:- 1) that after prima facie looking into all aspect of the matter and after having examined the question at issue as to whether consequent upon non impleading Devasthan Department, suit can be decreed or not, the court has found that it was necessary to implead the Devasthan Department as a party to the suit, 2) that in the instant case, right, title or interest in the suit premises vests with the Devasthan Department which the petitioner intends to demolish and thereafter to raise construction over it so that the question of right, title or interest of the Devasthan Department to the suit premises may not arise; and 3) that if the Devasthan Department is not allowed to be impleaded as a party to the suit, it may prejudice the rights of the Devasthan Department.
(3.) THE trial Court before allowing the impleadment application of the Devasthan Department has also relied upon the judgments of this court in the matters of Vimla Devi vs. Nand Lal, Shanti Lal vs. Laxmi Narain and Anr. (2), and Satish Chand vs. Bhonri Lal & Anr. (3) and after examining the ratio of the same, has recorded a categorical finding that impleadment of Devasthan Department is must in the instant case so that it may not result in multiplicity of litigations. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion at this stage touching upon the merits of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety, muchless any jurisdictional error. Moreover, the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 115 CPC even otherwise is limited and is confined only to corrections of illegalities apparent on the face of the impugned order which is sought to be challenged. In my view, the findings of the trial Court as above are very well reasoned findings which do not warrant any interference by this Court in this revision petition. ;