Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39264 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3980 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kailash Chandra Yadava Respondent :- Addl. Distt. Judge Sitapur Court No 4 And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhaya Kumar Dixit Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhaya Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 25.04.2023, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 was allowed as well as the order dated 25.03.2025, whereby, the revision preferred against the said order came to be dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of the property, which was subject matter of the suit by virtue of a sale-deed executed in his favour and as the original defendants to the suit were trying to disturb the possession, the suit in question was filed. In the said suit, an injunction was sought, the suit being Suit No. 19 of 2011. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent claiming his title moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10, which was numbered as Application No. 43A, on which, the petitioner filed objection, which was numbered as 50-C. The trial Court by means of an order dated 24.05.2023 allowed the application for impleadment. Aggrieved against the said, a revision was preferred, which too has been dismissed. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents in the garb of be impleaded, would be claiming his title over the property in the suit in question, which is not permissible unless a proper suit is instituted before the Revenue Court under the U.P. Revenue Code and thus, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court have erred in allowing the respondent to intervene in the suit. 5. My attention is drawn to the observations made by the revisional Court to substantiate the argument as quoted above. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the Courts have permitted the respondent to intervene the suit based upon the ownership claims by the respondent. Even if it is presumed that the respondent was not a necessary party and the plaintiff was the dominus litis, it cannot be ruled out that the respondent may still be a proper party. In view thereof, I do not see any reason to intervene in the two orders. However, it is clarified that in the event, the defendant claims any declaration in his favour with regard to the ownership of the land in question, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise suitable objections with regard to maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court, as may be advised in accordance with law. 7. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench