HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL REVISION No. - 51 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC assailing the order dated 05.07.2025, whereby the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow has allowed the application preferred by the private-respondent No.3 seeking his impleadment in Regular Suit No.814/2023 (Rehmat Ali Ansari v. Dr. Tareem Usmani and others). 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is the owner of the disputed property in question. The revisionist filed a suit on 22.08.2023 seeking cancellation of the sale-deed dated 08.07.2021 executed by the respondent No.2 (who was the power of attorney holder of the revisionist) in favour of the respondent No.1. 4. While the said suit was pending before the trial Court, the private- respondent No.3 moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC alleging that in furtherance of the sale-deed executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.3, hence, in furtherance thereof, rights have been created in favour of the respondent No.3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that he had moved an application seeking his impleadment. 5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial Court has erred in allowing the application. Since, the revisoinist being the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajit Verma, Mohd. Yousuf Umar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahmat Ali Ansari .....Revisionist(s) Dr. Tareem Usmani And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) plaintiff was dominus litis, hence, he had the right to chose his defendant. 6. The core question was in respect of sale-deed dated 08.07.2021 and in case if any rights accrued in favour of the private-respondent No.3 that would be dependent on the relief granted in the suit instituted by the revisionist, but nevertheless, the revisionist had not sought any relief against the respondent No.3. Accordingly, the Court concerned did not appreciate the controversy in the right perspective and has mechanically allowed the application for impleadment which is a jurisdictional error which ought to be corrected in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 7. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. 8. Apparently, the facts which are not disputed are that the revisionist had executed a sale-deed in favour of the respondent No.1 on 08.07.2021 (through is power of attorney holder, namely, the respondent No.2). It is also not disputed that the power of attorney executed by the revisionist in favour of the respondent No.2 was dated 13.02.2020. The said power of attorney came to be cancelled on 11.02.2022. The suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 08.07.2021 was filed by the revisionist on 22.08.2023, however, in the interregnum, the respondent No.1 executed a sale-deed in favour of the respondent No.3 on 27.06.2023. 9. It is on the strength of the aforesaid deed that the respondent No.3 came forward to be impleaded. Since, the sale-deed dated 27.06.2023 was prior to the institution of the suit i.e. 22.08.2023, in the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent No.3, who admittedly claims title to the property, is not a necessary or a proper party. For a complete and effectual adjudication, the presence of the respondent No.3 cannot be ruled out. 10. The scope and powers exercised by a Court in terms of Order I Rule 10 CPC are wide enough for the Courts to ascertain as to whether any party who has a right in the subject matter can be impleaded or not. 11. In the facts, as noticed above, the respondent No.3 claiming rights on the basis of sale-deed dated 27.06.2023 has a right to contest the CLRE No. 51 of 2025 2 proceedings. Hence, the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is palpable error in the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 to persuade this Court to entertain the revision which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. November 11, 2025 Rakesh/- CLRE No. 51 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench