Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18864 Court No. - 6 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 6 of 2025 Revisionist :- Mohd. Shabi Khan Opposite Party :- Shaham Azim Khan And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Prabhat Kumar,Janardan Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pranjal Krishna,Suruchi Tripathi Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard the counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pranjal Krishna, the counsel for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging an order dated 05.03.2025 whereby the application filed for impleading the Nagar Nigam in exercise of the power under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 in section 151 CPC was rejected. 3. The facts, as emerged, are that one Shaham Azim Khan, claiming to be the landlord of the premises in occupation of the defendant Mohd. Ubaid Ali instituted JSCC Suit No.66 of 2016 which came to be decreed ex-parte on 17.02.2018. Subsequently, the defendant to the said suit Mohd. Ubaid Ali, as claimed by the revisionist, gave the property on rent/lease to the present revisionist on 01.04.2019. Based upon the said contention, the present revisionist moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97 claiming that he was in possession of the property by virtue of a lease executed by the defendant to the suit Mohd. Ubaid Ali on 01.04.2019. During the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed seeking the impleadment of the Nagar Nigam on the ground that the original lessee Saham Azam Khan was served with a notice by the Nagar Nigam terminating his lease deed vide communication dated 06.07.2020. The said application was rejected, against which the revision has been preferred. 4. Considering the fact that the entire case of the revisionist is based upon his independent claim under Order 21 Rule 97, there was no necessity whatsoever of impleading Nagar Nigam as sought to be impleaded as Nagar Nigam is neither a necessary nor a proper party more so in the execution proceedings, which are being resisted by the revisionist under Order 21 Rule 97. No error can be found with the order impugned. 5. The revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6. However, considering the fact that the execution is pending since 2018, the present revision is disposed off with direction to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.4 Lucknow to decide the Execution Case within a period of six months in the light of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3640-3642 of 2025 (Periyammal (dead) through Lrs. and others vs. V. Rajamani and another Etc.) dated 06.03.2025 without granting adjournments to any of the parties. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench