HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL REVISION No. - 155 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for respondents are present. 2. This instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 30.5.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second, Gautam Budh Nagar in O.S. No. 1974 of 2025 (M/s Atharv Infrastructure vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority). 3. Briefly stated, a suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the revisionist-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant, NOIDA Authority. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was moved by a third party, which was allowed by the learned trial court. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial court impleading M/s Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. as a party to the suit, the revisionist-plaintiff has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the disputed land and the dispute are between the revisionist-plaintiff and the defendant, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. The impleaded party, M/s Three C Green Developers Private Limited, has no concern with the disputed property and is claiming its rights on the strength of a lease executed in its favour by the NOIDA Authority. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court allowing the impleadment application of M/s Three C Green Developers Private Limited is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application filed by Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rahul Kumar Yadav, Shiv Ram Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : M/S Atharv Infrastructure Partner Shivang Dhaka .....Revisionist(s) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority And Another .....Opposite Party(s) the respondent/third party for impleading it as a party to the suit, along with the averments made by the revisionist in his suit. It is apparent from a combined reading of the plaint as well as the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC that the disputed land was earlier leased in favour of the respondent/third party. Hence, it cannot be denied that the party impleaded by the impugned order has a concern with the disputed property. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court does not warrant any interference. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.05.2026 passed by the learned trial court is upheld. This revision is dismissed. September 23, 2026 Ujjawal CLRE No. 155 of 2026 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad