JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.4.2002 by which the Writ Petition No. 3948/97 filed by one Khumandas Rankawat stated to be a public interest litigation was dismissed by learned Single Judge finding no merit in it. 2. The present appellant has moved an application on 14.12.2001 to be impleaded him as a party in that writ petition to support the petitioner. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge rejected the application of the present appellant also finding that he has no right in the plot in question. 3. The appeal is barred by 46 days. The application under section 5 of Limitation Act has been moved stating that since the appellant was not represented by lawyer be could not come to know about the order under challenge, therefore, he could not file the appeal within limitation. 4. Assuming for the present purpose that delay in filing the appeal is condoned, however, we do not find any substance in the appeal to keep it pending at the instance of the petitioner-appellant. 5. The writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation whereas the appellant in this case, in his application to be impleaded as party, has shown personal interest in the litigation by alleging himself to be an intending bidder for the plot In question which was allotted to respondent No. 5, Shri Bhanwar Lal Chordia in exchange of plot for which he had bid way back in the year 1970 and had deposited 1/4 of the amount in 1970 itself and bid was accepted in December 1970,but finding that the delivery of the possession could not be given to the buyer whose bid has been accepted in December. 1970 because it was in occupation of some other person, U.I.T. finally agreed to provide him alternative land. 6. Be that as it may, the personal interest shown in purchase of the said plot dis-entitles the present appellant to pursue this litigation as a public interest litigation. If he has personal interest, he could pursue his own remedy but he is not a person, who could be substituted himself to be party in the public interest litigation for the said cause. Secondly, he has not impleaded in this petition, the person,at whose instance, the petition has been filed. If he has personal interest, he could pursue his own remedy but he is not a person, who could be substituted himself to be party in the public interest litigation for the said cause. Secondly, he has not impleaded in this petition, the person,at whose instance, the petition has been filed. Moreover, he has made an application to be impleaded as a party in the pending writ petition about 4 years after its filing when the petition was ripe for hearing.No reason was assigned for such belated arousal of interest in this Its. 7. Apart from that his only claim to the plot in question is on the ground that his plot is situated adjacent to that plot. Merely because the appellant was owing a plot adjacent to plot allotted to respondent No. 5, he does not have any vested or other interest in that land. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no fault can be found with the order of the learned Single Judge in rejecting his application to be impleaded as party and since he was not found a proper or necessary party to be impleaded in the writ petition, he cannot be treated as an aggrieved person. Moreover, the appellant has not even sought leave to appeal against order on merit as a person otherwise aggrieved of the order, except as a consequence of his being impleaded as party. 9. Accordingly, the application under section 3 of Limitation Act as well as the appeal by the present appellant are dismissed.Appeal Dismissed.. *******