JUDGMENT 1. - This is the plaintiff's revision petition against the order dated July 27, 1982, pissed by the Addl. Munsif, Bhilwara, whereby the application of non-petitioner No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was allowed. 2. The plaintiff petitioner had instituted a suit against the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, with the allegations that in the year 1967, the State Government had allotted 10 acre land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had put poles and barbed wires as a boundary to the land described by the plaintiff in the plaint. It was alleged that the defendant U. I. T intends to sell the plaintiff s land after forcibily occupying the same and a notice to that effect has been issued by the U. I. T., whereby the plaintiff has been called upon to remove the barbed wiring. It was further alleged that on 16-4-82, the defendant U. I. T. sent 25 labourers and started removing the barbed wires. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted a suit on the next day i. e. on 17-4-82 for declaration that the land in question belongs to the plaintiff and that the defendant U. I. T. has no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the land in question and the U. I. T. may be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff and from making its use and occupation 3. On 24-5-82, Rameshwarlal, Manager, Gayatri Parivir Trust, Haridwar, submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 C. P. C with the allegation that on May 19, 1982. the U.I.T., Bhilwara, had allotted 150 ft. x 500 ft of land in favour of the Trust. the reserve price of which is Rs. 17,1000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- have been deposited. As a result of the allotment of the land, title and interest has been created in his favour and the plaintiff has no right or title over the land and the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction in respect of the land which had been allotted by the U.I.T. to him. He prayed that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and proceedings, he may be added as a party. The application was resisted by the plaintiff. 4. The learned Munsif, after hearing the parties allowed the application. He prayed that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and proceedings, he may be added as a party. The application was resisted by the plaintiff. 4. The learned Munsif, after hearing the parties allowed the application. While allowing the application, the learned Munsif, however, observed that by simple allotment of land which is yet to be confirmed by the Government and in respect of which sale-deed is yet to be executed, title has not arisen in favour of the intervenor. The U. I. T. has simply resolved for the allotment of the land in favour of the intervenor and in respect of which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited. However, the learned Munsif further observed that an indirect interest has been created in the land in question. The intervenor has been made as a party to the suit to avoid multiplicity of suits and proceedings. Dissatisfied by the order of the Munsif the plaintiff has come in revision. 5. I have heard Mr. D. S. Shishodia learned counsel for the plaintiff' petitioner, Mr. N. N. Mathur for the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhtlwara, and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the intervanor non-petitioner No. 2. 6. Mr. Shishodia learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the non petitioner No. 2 in the revision petition has absolutely no interest in the petitioner's land which was allotted to the petitioner as far back as 1967 and the petitioner is in possession of the satire. Even if it is taken that the U.I.T. has allotted some portion of the land to the non-petitioner No. 2, the allotment of non-petitioner No. 2 has not yet been completed. It is subject to confirmation by the State Government and no right or interest has been created in the non-petitioner No. 2 by a resolution of the U.I.T. in favour of the non-petitioner No. 2 and by depositing Rs. 25,000/- by him towards the price of the and. Unless the non-petitioner No. 2 has direct, immediate and present interest in the land in question or part of the land in question, he can have no locus-standi to move the court to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. 25,000/- by him towards the price of the and. Unless the non-petitioner No. 2 has direct, immediate and present interest in the land in question or part of the land in question, he can have no locus-standi to move the court to be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. He has not even the semblance of interest in the land by the resolution of the U. I. T. he has submitted that the court below has also expressed an opinion to this effect. But despite that, considering, that indirectly some interest has arisen in non-petitioner No. 2 and in case the matter is decided in his absence, it will unnecessarily give rise to multiplicity of suits and proceedings and in case the non-petitioner No. 2 in added as a party, the controversy can be effectively and completely resolved, ordered for impleading him as a party. Such a view taken by trial court was erroneous, more particularly when it has expressed an opinion that non-petitioner No. 2 has no existing interest as such. In support of his contention, Mr. Shishodia referred to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in (1) Noormohammed Hajishama v. Anand Mohan Bhardwaj and others ( AIR 1981 Guj. 132 ). 7. Mr. N. N. Mathur, counsel for non-petitioner No. 1, supported the contention of Mr. Shishodia. However, Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari refuted the same. Mr. Maheshwari urged that some part of the land in respect of which the plaintiff claims to be the owner, the U. I. T. has allotted that land to the non- petitioner No 2 and substantial amount has been deposited by way of its price. In case the allotment is confirmed in his favour, his right over the property would be adversely affected if the plaintiff's case is decided in his absence. The U I T. does not admit what is alleged by the plaintiff-and it is on that basis that it had proceeded to allot the disputed land to non-petitioner No 2. If the suit is allowed to be contested by non-petitioner No. 2, the real controversy between the parties would be settled and it will be decided as to whether the disputed and belongs to the plaintiff or not and whether it is open for allotment or not, Mr. Maheshwari thus supported the impugned order passed by the learned Munif. 8. If the suit is allowed to be contested by non-petitioner No. 2, the real controversy between the parties would be settled and it will be decided as to whether the disputed and belongs to the plaintiff or not and whether it is open for allotment or not, Mr. Maheshwari thus supported the impugned order passed by the learned Munif. 8. In the light of the contentions advanced before me by Mr. Shishodia on the one hand and by Mr. Maheshwari on the other, it would be seen as to whether the learned Munsif has exercised his discretion in the matter, on sound judicial principles. It is true that the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code confers a wide discretion on a court to add any person as a party to the suit and the addition of the Party may result into settlement of questions arising in the suit and the controversy may be effectively, finally and completely resolved. The trial court had to see that when any person seeks to be impleaded as a party to the suit, as to whether that person has a plausible case and has present interest in the subject matter of the litigation Persons may approach the court to be added as a party, even when they may have no semblance of interest in the subject matter of litigation and they ratty approach the court with some oblique motive or ulterior design on their part, then the litigation may be prolonged and hurdles may be created in the just decision of the case. The case, which such intervenors may put up before the court has to be examined in the light as to whether that case raises triable issue and has sub-stance in it or application has been presented for application sake. If the party is not added, then such an intervenor his an independent right to resort to a remedy which may be available to him in law. If the party is not added, then such an intervenor his an independent right to resort to a remedy which may be available to him in law. But when he is directly interested in the subject matter of the litigation and the decision in the pending suit may in some way adversely affect him then in that situation the court would be justified to implead the intervenor as a party to the suit In that situation it can be said that by addition of the intervenor as a party, the controversies in the suit, not only between the original parties to the suit but also between the plain tiff and the intervenor would be decided and in that situation the questions would be decided effectively, finally and completely. One of the principles which has been enunciated by the Supreme Court while examining the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code in (2) Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others (AIR 1958 S. C. 886), is that an intervenor can be added as a party when he has a direct interest in the property, the subject matter of the litigation. Considering the present matter in this light in my opinion it cannot be said that the non-petitioner No. 2 has an existing direct interest in the land in question. Right, title and interest in the land in question is yet to be ripened. By a resolution of allotment of land what can be said is that he has some potential interest but not an existing direct interest in the land in question. In respect of such a person, in my opinion, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) Civil Procedure Code cannot be rightly invoked. 9. However, a question arises, whether the order in question even when it is found that it is wrong, and that the discretion has not been judicially exercised, whether it is open to revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code ? Section 115 Civil Procedure Code has underwent amendment anal a proviso has been added to sub-section (1) of Section 115. In clause (b) of the proviso a further requirement has been created for the exercise of revisional power that the order sought to be revised, if is allowed to stand, would occasion failure of justice or would cause irreparable injury to the complaining party. In clause (b) of the proviso a further requirement has been created for the exercise of revisional power that the order sought to be revised, if is allowed to stand, would occasion failure of justice or would cause irreparable injury to the complaining party. Even when any one of the three grounds for the revisional jurisdiction exists. still the order is required to satisfy the condition laid down in clause (a) or (b) of the proviso. So a question arises as to whether the impugned order would occasion failure of justice or would cause irreparable injury. Mr. Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order would certainly cause irreparable injury to the petitioner in as much as it will result into prolongation of the litigation. The party which has no right to be heard in the suit, would unnecessarily prolong the suit. Besides that the party added may continue to drag the petitioner from one forum to the other, in spite of the fact that the main contesting defendant from whom the plaintiff has derived title, may choose not to challenge the judgment or the decree which may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and accept the decision rendered in favour of the plaintiff. Reference was made by Mr. Shishodia to an observation made in the Gujarat case referred to above. In that case the plaintiff challenged the order declaring the land to be evacuee property. The property was allotted to the intervenor taking it to be an evacuee property by the defendant. The allottee submitted an application for adding him as a party to the suit. His application was allowed by the trial court but on revision by the plaintiff, the order of the trial court was set aside. In the facts of that case, it was observed that in the instant case if the plaintiff successfully proves that the order declaring his property to be an evacuee property is illegal and the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 are also satisfied with the view of the trial court and decide not to appeal, the plaintiff will have to fight over legal battles if the allottee decided to challenge the view in the higher forum. These observations, no doubt to some extent support the petitioner. These observations, no doubt to some extent support the petitioner. But in my opinion the matter has not been viewed ni the light of the proviso added to sub- section 1 of section 115. The requirement of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 115 is. that the order should result into failure of justice or causing irreparable injury. If an intervenor is allowed to be added as a party, then undoubtedly he will have a right to contest the suit, submit his pleading and documents, cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and adduce evidence in support of his own case. On being unsuccessfull, he will have a right of appeal only when a decree is passed against him and a decree can be passed against him only when the plaintiff amends his plaint and seeks relief against him. The intervenor will have no right of appeal where no decree is passed against him. But allowing the intervenor to contest the plaintiff's suit would not mean that it will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Whatever little delay is caused in disposal of the case, is not that specie of injury which can be termed as irreparable. If frivolous litigation is being conducted by a party, then in that situation courts have ample power to compensate the party who has suffered. So prolongation in the disposal of the suit or loss being caused in connection with preferring of unwanted appeals would not constitute any irreparable injury. It may be mentioned that the Parliament had a certain object while introducing and incorporating proviso in sub-section 1 of Section 115. The object of the Parliament appears to be curtailment of the remedy of revision. Unless the conditions laid down in clauses (a) or (b) are further satisfied, revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code would not be competent. It is in this manner that the proviso would operate on the maintainability of the revision petitions. 10. Section 115 was an aft-sought provision whereby journey of the litigation used to be prolonged so the Parliament made the provision more stringent and qualified. It is in this manner that the proviso would operate on the maintainability of the revision petitions. 10. Section 115 was an aft-sought provision whereby journey of the litigation used to be prolonged so the Parliament made the provision more stringent and qualified. Parliament was faced with the problems of delay, accumulation of arrears in law courts, and tier upon tier remedies so while amending the various other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure with a view to achieve the object of cheap and speedy justice amended Section 115 as well by introducing proviso to sub-Section 1 of section 115. If a liberal view of the proviso is taken, the wholesome object behind the proviso would be defeated. 11. Mr. Maheshwari in this connection has referred to a decision of' the Punjab and Haryana High Court in (3) Sarup Chand v. Nagar Palika, Saugur and others (AIR 1980 P & 11 114). in that case, the question of impleading of a party under Order 1 Rule 10 has been considered in the light of the proviso to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code and viewed in that light, it has been observed that even in the order passed impleading a party to the suit is wrong, still it cannot be interfered with under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code in view of the fact that it would neither occasion failure of justice nor cause irreparable injury to the party complaining of the order. Every wrong order will have some had effect but that does not mean that it would result into failure of justice or irreparable injury. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be interfered with, However, the trial courts white considering the question of impleading of parties should give due regard to the matters which have been considered above. 12. In the result this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. *******