JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.7.1981 by the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, confirming the judgment and order dated 12.12.1980 by the learned trial court in a case u/Sec. 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. In the trial court, it was a case by Sri Ram plaintiff against Hridaya Ram defendant, for declaration and ejectment. When the whole evidence was over Ram Raj brother of Hridaya Ram came with the pleading that he was also in possession along with Hridaya Ram and so he should also be impleaded as party. The request was refused by the learned trial court and the revision by Ram Raj against the order was rejected by the learned Commissioner on the ground that the revisionist did not have any direct interest in the land in suit, being not recorded and having not caused directly any grievance to the plaintiff. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that Ram Raj being brother of Birdaya Ram ana in joint possession of the land in suit, was a joint sirdar by adverse possession and so had to be impleaded as a party. He further argued that under Order I Rule 3 C.P.C., the revisionist was also entitled to be joined as defendant and even under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., the court could add him as a party for deciding the suit in a proper manner. He argued that the affidavit of Hridaya Ram supported the possession of Ram Raj. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the revisionist was nowhere entered in the revenue records in any year, that there was no oral evidence in support of Ram Raj in adverse possession for the prescribed period, that the affidavit of Hridaya Ram was only an after thought as there was no mention of the subject in the written statement of Hridaya Ram, that Order I Rule 3 C.P.C. was applicable only at the time of filing of the suit while this application for impleadment was made towards the closure of the case after all the evidence had been taken and that Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. is not attracted in the circumstances of the case. He argued that even the arguments had been heard and this application for impleadment was for merely delaying the case and was malafide. 5. It is the settled law that no defendant can be forced upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff clearly sought a remedy of ejectment of Hridaya Ram. If the suit is decreed, Hridaya Ram would be ejected but no other person could be ejected under the decree. It was in the interest of the plaintiff to implead persons whom he feared to be in adverse possession. So the plaintiff was the best judge who should be the defendant in such a case. Obviously, Ram Raj was not proceeded against by the plaintiff and he was also not recorded in possession. Therefore, after conclusion of the evidence, the application of the revisionist was nothing but malafide. The learned trial court was within its right to reject the application and cannot be said to have failed in the exercise of jurisdiction by such refusal to implead the revisionist. 6. As discussed above, the revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs.