JUDGMENT 1. - Non-petitioner No. 2 has not been served. A short point of controversy is involved between the petitioner and non-petitioners therefore, on the request of both the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 4th May, 2001 by which the applicant was impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It was stated in the application by the applicant that disputed land is Government land and is the land of the way and the applicant will be adversely affected by the decision of the suit filed by the plaintiff. The trial court after considering the facts of the case allowed the application of the applicant. The petitioner has challenged the above order dated 4th May, 2001. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the non-petitioner should not have been impleaded as party in the suit because admittedly the applicant is neither owner of the property nor defend any title or interest in the property and it is also submitted that the applicant is totally unconnected with the controversy. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Girdhari Lal Vs. Nagar Parishad reported in 1987 (2) RLR 462 = 1988 (1) RLW 75 . According to learned counsel for the petitioner this court has taken a view that a party cannot be impleaded just because of reason that party feels that he will be in position to defend the suit in better manner than the Municipality. In this case of Girdhari Lal (supra) this court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of impleading party and according to learned counsel for the petitioner the same is situation in this case also. 4. I perused the facts of the case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. In above case, the plaintiff- petitioner filed suit for issue of perpetual mandatory injunction against the Municipality, Bharatpur alleging therein that, there was a Shankar Vyayam Shalla owned and possessed by the petitioner Municipality, Bharatpur and built a urinal in the portion of the Vyayam Shalla. Therefore, the petitioner sought perpetual mandatory injunction as prohibitory injunction. In above case, the plaintiff- petitioner filed suit for issue of perpetual mandatory injunction against the Municipality, Bharatpur alleging therein that, there was a Shankar Vyayam Shalla owned and possessed by the petitioner Municipality, Bharatpur and built a urinal in the portion of the Vyayam Shalla. Therefore, the petitioner sought perpetual mandatory injunction as prohibitory injunction. In that case one Babulal submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying that he is Manager and Secretary of the aforesaid Vyayam Shalla and he should be made party of the suit. He further stated that land is owned by the Municipality of Bharatpur. It these circumstances this court held that the applicant Babulal cannot be impleaded as party. It is clear from the facts of the above case that there was a rival claimant to the plaintiff for the same Vyayam Shalla alleging himself to be Manager/Secretary of the Vyayam Shalla itself and he only shows his willingness to become party with sole object to defend the suit under impression that the Municipality itself will not be able to defend the suit and the applicant will be in better position to defend the suit. But here in this case, the applicant is not contending that he will not (sic ?) be in better position to defend the suit but in fact, applicant in his own right of way, and he is a person aggrieved. Therefore, the facts of the case are distinguishable. It is also relevant to mention here that in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the order under challenge will be allowed to stand, the petitioner will not likely to suffer any loss or injury.Therefore, I do not find any force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******