JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition arises out of order-dated 9.12.1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) (North) Kota in Civil Suit No. 4/99, whereby application of the respondent Nos. 2 to 13 moved u/O. 1 R. 10 CPC has been accepted impleading them as defendant to the suit. The suit was filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff (petitioner) against the Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 1). 2. The application was moved u/O. 1 R. 10 CPC by the respondent Nos. 2 to 13 for impleading them as defendants to the suit in public interest. The application was contested by the plaintiff by contending in reply that no public interest would be served in allowing them as defendants because the colony in which the plaintiff's house is situated over the land since 1987 in an unauthorised colony on the agricultural land of Kesar Bagh and the respondent Nos. 2 to 13 should not be allowed to be impleaded as defendants as necessary parties to the suit, merely on the basis of their alleged easementary rights. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 2 to 13, who have no ownership right over the suit land and without obtaining any permission from the competent authority, they had con- strued their house in conspiracy with some land owners. It was thus contended that the learned trial Court had committed illegality and material irregularity in not taking into consideration the facts of the case in their true perspective by impleading the respondents No. 2 to 13 whose case is totally misconceived and fabricated. Since there is alternative road in the colony having 25 ft. width but with malice and some ulterior motive, the said applicants intend to throw out the plaintiff (petitioner) from their area with a view to encroach upon the land as well. 4. Be that as it may, without entering into any controversy or expressing opinion on merit of their rights, which the parties have yet to establish by leading cogent and reliable evidence in respect of their rival contentions before the trial Court, I am of the view that it is a matter of judicial discretion of the trial Court as required u/O. 1 R. 10 CPC before any party is allowed to be impleaded in the suit. It may be, in certain cases, appropriate to file an application for impleadment so that the right of the respective parties can be effectively adjudicated and decided in a pending suit, rather by filing separate suit for determination of their rights, which may unnecessarily lead to multiplicity of litigation. It was primarily with this view that the Legislature in its wisdom thought of incorporating O. 1 R. 10 CPC and in my view, no prejudice would be caused to the present petitioner, if right of the respective parties qua the petitioner's rights are also adjudicated in this suit itself, rather than directing the impleaded defendants to avail of alternative remedy, for which no purpose would be served, except adding to the multiplicity of litigation. 5. As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in this petition and consequently the same is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******