HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL REVISION No. - 103 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This civil revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 5.12.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah in Original Suit No 110 of 2019 (Shri Maha Saraswati Ji Bhandar, Saraswati Vidyapeeth vs. Sanjeev Kumar & others), whereby the learned trial court has allowed the impleadment application filed by the respondent/third party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC in the aforesaid suit. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their nomenclature as assigned in the plaint. The revisionist at present is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the aforesaid suit. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist- plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent in respect of Plot Nos. 1999 and 1998, situated at Mauza Kasba, District Etawah. It was submitted that, in the plaint, the revisionist had specifically pleaded that he was the recorded tenure-holder of Plot No. 1999. Subsequently, an application for amendment of the plaint was moved, whereby the claim in respect of Plot No. 1998 was deleted. Thus, the dispute, as it now survives, is confined to Plot No. 1999. 5. It was further submitted that the application for impleadment moved by the respondent/third party was allowed by the learned trial court without Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Keshav Hari Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Gaur, Shivanand Mishra Shri Maha Saraswati Ji Bhandar, Saraswati Vidyapeeth .....Revisionist(s) Pradeep Kumar Saxena And 3 Other .....Opposite Party(s) considering whether the said respondent was either a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings. Learned counsel contended that the respondent/third party had failed to produce any documentary evidence or revenue record demonstrating that he was recorded as a tenure-holder in respect of the disputed Plot No. 1999. It was, therefore, submitted that the finding recorded by the learned trial court was legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/third party, who had been impleaded before the learned trial court, submitted that the disputed plot had originally belonged to the ancestors of the respondent and that the names of his ancestors stood recorded in the record-of-rights for the years 1359 Fasli and 1387 Fasli. It was further submitted that the revisionist had deliberately manipulated the particulars of Plot Nos. 1999 and 1998, in respect whereof a complaint was submitted on behalf of the respondent before the concerned Lekhpal, pursuant to which an order came to be passed in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Original Suit No.677 of 1948 (Chhotey Lal vs. Tota & Ors.) and submitted that the said judgment itself has established the rights of the respondent over the disputed land. It was, accordingly, contended that the impleadment of the respondent by the learned trial court suffers from no illegality or infirmity and that the civil revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court, while allowing the application for impleadment, proceeded substantially on the basis of the averments made by the respondent that the disputed land had earlier belonged to his ancestors. The learned trial court, however, failed to adequately examine whether the respondent satisfied the requirements for being impleaded as a necessary or proper party, particularly in view of the nature of the dispute involved in the suit. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the dispute relates to agricultural land. In such matters, the entries contained in the relevant revenue records CLRE No. 103 of 2026 2 constitute an important piece of evidence for determining the recorded status and rights of the parties. A party in absence of any entry in his favour in the revenue records cannot claim any right or title over the property. In the present case, the respondent has not been able to demonstrate, by reference to the relevant revenue records, that he or his predecessors-in-interest were recorded tenure-holders in respect of the disputed Plot No.1999. Mere assertion that the property had earlier belonged to the respondent's ancestors, in the absence of supporting revenue entries or other cogent material, could not, by itself, furnish sufficient ground for his impleadment in the suit. 10. The learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, has failed to consider these material aspects of the matter and has proceeded merely on the basis of the pleadings of the proposed party. The order, therefore, suffers from a manifest error of approach and cannot be sustained. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the impleadment of the respondent/third party by the learned trial court is held to be unsustainable. 12. Accordingly, the civil revision is allowed. The order dated 5.12.2025 passed by the learned trial court is hereby set aside. September 30, 2026 SK CLRE No. 103 of 2026 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad