ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated March 27, 1992, passed by the Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Civil Judge allowed the application under Order 1 rule 10 C. P. C. filed by Gyan Chandra and allowed him to be impleaded as a defendant to the suit.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS Suninderjeet Singh and Jitendraveer Singh filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan and the Gram Panchayat, 4-LL with respect to two plots measuring 165' x 90' each situated in Chak 5-HH tehsil and district Sri Ganganagar. It was prayed in the suit that the defendants may be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from these two plots of land. Initially the Gram Panchayat was added as a party but later on, it was deleted as it was not a necessary party. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. for temporary injunction was also, filed by the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, an application was, moved by Gyan Chandra to implead him as a defendant to the proceedings. It was averred in the application that these two plots were alloted to the plaintiffs by the Gram Panchayat in contravention of the Rules and without following the procedure, as provided under the Rules and the applicant challenged that allotment of the plots in favour of the plaintiffs by way of a revision petition before the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, and that revision petition was allowed and the allotments made in favour of the plaintiffs were set-aside by the learned Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar, vide its order dated January 30, 1992, and as the plaintiffs have challenged this very order passed by the learned Additional Collector in this suit and has prayed for the grant of permanent injunction and, therefore, he is a necessary party to the proceedings as the order which is under challenge, has been passed at the instance of the applicant. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs, but the learned Civil Judge, by its order dated March 27,1992, allowed the application filed by the applicant Gyan Chandra and ordered to implead him as a defendant in this suit. It is against this order that the plaintiffs have filed the present revision petition. According to Order 1 rule 10 C. P. C. the Court may, at any stage of the suit if it comes to the conclusion that it is necessary for the determination of the real controversy in dispute, order for the addition of a party upon such terms as the Court thinks proper. A parly can be added if its presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of all the questions involved in the suit and if any relief has been prayed against him. The plaintiffs, in the present suit, have prayed that the execution of the order dated 30-1-92, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar may be stayed and they may not be dispossessed from the plots in question in pursuance of this order dated 30-1-92. Admittedly, the order dated 30-1-92, was passed by the learned Additional Collector in revision petition filed by the applicant Gyan Chandra. When an order that has been sought to be made inoperative and the execution of which has been sought to be stayed, which was passed in the revision filed by Gyan Chandra then the part at whose instance the order is passed, is a necessary party to resolve the controversy as the validity of that order is in question. The learned lower Court, therefore, was justified in allowing the application under Order 1 rule 10 C. P. C. filed by the applicant Gyan Chandra and rightly impleaded him as a defendant. No material irregularity or illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in passing the order. The Order passed by the learned lower Court has been passed after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and, thus, does not require any interference. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. .;