Judgment :- (Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C against the order dated 3.9.99 made in I.A.No.408/99 in O.S.122/97 by the District Munsif, Manamadurai.) This Revision is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Manamadurai in I.A.No.408/99 in O.S.No.1`22/97 (3.9.99) allowing the petition in I.A.408/99 filed for impleading, Respondents 1 and 2 who belong to Virayadha Kandan Village. The Plaintiff / Vadugai Mahalir Mandram is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The facts necessitated for disposal of this Revision could briefly be stated thus: Plaintiff / Vadugai Mahalir Mandram has filed the suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the third Defendant / Deputy Director, Health Services from shifting the Primary Health Centre functioning in Vadugai Kudiyiruppu to Virayadhakandan Village and for other reliefs. The case of the Revision petitioner / Plaintiff is that even in 1960 the Elementary School in Virayadhakandan Village has been shifted to Vadugai Kudiyiruppu. Water resources are available only in Vadugai Kudiyiruppu. In Vadugai Kudiyiruppu more than 600 people are living; whereas in Virayadhakandan Village there are only about 200 people. Since Vadugai Kudiyiruppu has got all basic amenities, the Primary Health Centre started functioning in Vadugai Kudiyiruppu from the year 1987 and functioning till date. While so, the defendants have been taking steps for shifting Primary Health Centre to Virayadhakandan Village. If the Primary Health Centre is shifted to Virayadhakandan Village, the people of Vadugai Kudiyiruppu would be subjected to much hardship and inconvenience and hence, the suit for Permanent Injunction. 3. Denying the plaint averments and alleging that the plaint prayer is mis-conceived, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the written statement contending that the Primary Health Centre has been located and functioning only in Virayadhakandan Village even from the year 1987. Vadugai Kudiyiruppu is comprised in Virayadhakandan Village Panchayat. Only Virayadhakandan Village has all facilities and more population. Hence, the Primary Health Centre has been located and functioning in Virayadhakandan Village from 1987. The people of Vadugai Kudiyiruppu has not come forward to give any building for rent for locating the Primary Health Centre. Hence, even from the year 1987, the Primary Health Centre has been functioning in Virayadhakandan Village. Since the Primary Health Centre has been located in Virayadhakandan Village for more than one decade, it is recommended to give priority to the Virayadhakandan Village to have its own building for Primary Health Centre. Hence, even from the year 1987, the Primary Health Centre has been functioning in Virayadhakandan Village. Since the Primary Health Centre has been located in Virayadhakandan Village for more than one decade, it is recommended to give priority to the Virayadhakandan Village to have its own building for Primary Health Centre. Accordingly, steps have been taken for putting up construction in S.No.75/2 and for transfer of the land. 4. During the pendency of the suit for trial, Respondents 1 and 2 / newly impleaded parties, namely, Krishnan and Malairaju of Virayadhakandan Village have filed an Application to implead themselves. Reiterating the averments in the written statement, the Respondents 1 and 2 have filed I.A.408/99 for impleading themselves. They have contended that they are residents of Virayadhakandan Village and that the Suit in O.S.122/97 relates to the Primary Health Centre located in Virayadhakandan Village and hence they are interested in the result of the suit and sought to implead themselves in the suit. The application was resisted by the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff. Exs.P.1 to P.10 have been produced onbehalf of the Plaintiff. Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked on behalf of the Defendants. 5. Pointing out that Respondents 1 and 2 belong to Virayadhakandan Village and are entitled to take appropriate steps for promoting the interest of the villagers and by taking steps for retaining the Primary Health Centre in Virayadhakandan Village, learned District Munsif found that the residents of Virayadhakandan Village are entitled to be heard and are necessary parties to the suit and accordingly, allowed the Application. 6. Aggrieved over the allowing of the application in I.A.408/99, Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff has preferred this Revision. When the Revision was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff. The suit relates to the Public Interest concerning the location of Primary Health Centre and the suit is pending from the year 1997. Hence,upon consideration of the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Revision, the Revision was taken up for hearing. 7. Respondents 1 and 2 have been represented by the counsel Mr.S.Natarajan. Respondents 3 and 4 represented by the Learned Government Advocate. 8. Hence,upon consideration of the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Revision, the Revision was taken up for hearing. 7. Respondents 1 and 2 have been represented by the counsel Mr.S.Natarajan. Respondents 3 and 4 represented by the Learned Government Advocate. 8. In the Memorandum of grounds of Revision, on behalf of the Revision Petitioner, it is contended that respondents 1 and 2 have filed the application in their individual capacity and the same has been filed only with a view to delay the proceedings and it was not properly appreciated by the lower Court. The impugned order is assailed on the ground that the first and second respondents have no individual interest and when they do not represent the interest of the public of Virayadhakandan Village, the Trial Court erred in allowing the application ordering impleading of respondents 1 and 2. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has drawn the attention of the Court to the written statement filed by the first Defendant / Deputy Director, Health Services, wherein it is categorically stated about the location and functioning of Primary Health Centre in Virayadhakandan Village even from the year 1987. Assailing the framing of the suit, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that in the plaint which has been filed in a suit for Permanent Injunction not to shift the Primary Health Centre from Vadugai Kudiyiruppu to Virayadhakandan Village, it is contended that strangely the plaintiff has not chosen to implead the necessary party, namely, villagers of Virayadhakandan Village. It is further submitted that for full and effectual adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the learned District Munsif has rightly allowed the application ordering impleading of Respondents 1 and 2 and there is no reason warranting interference. 10. From the written statement filed by the first Defendant / Deputy Director, Health Services, it is made clear that the Primary Health Centre has been located and functioning only in Virayadhakandan Village even from the year 1987. The relevant averments in the written statement is as follows: When that being so, the prayer in the plaint "for permanent injunction" restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 from shifting the Primary Health Centre from Vadugai Kudiyiruppu to Virayadhakandan Village is "highly misconceived". The Plaintiff 'Mandram' has suppressed the material fact of existence and functioning of Primary Health Centre in Virayadhakandan Village. The Plaintiff 'Mandram' has suppressed the material fact of existence and functioning of Primary Health Centre in Virayadhakandan Village. The Villagers of Virayadhakandan Village would be directly affected as a result of the judgment and decree and in that view of the matter, the villagers of Virayadhakandan Village are necessary parties to the suit. 11. As per the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, a Party can be impleaded in the suit for determining the questions under the following circumstances: - i. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Applicant is a necessary and proper party? ii. Whether presence of such a party before the Court is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the matter and granting a complete and effective decree to the party entitled to it? iii. Whether such a party interested would be directly affected as a result of the decree or it would only be affected remotely, indirectly and distantly? The question involved in the suit mainly relates to the Primary Health Centre, which is functioning in the Virayadhakandan Village. Hence, impleading of Respondents 1 and 2 who belong to Virayadhakandan Village is necessary to settle the question involved in the suit. 12. Learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 is right in submitting that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to put forth the interest of the Public of Virayadhakandan Village, impleading of the parties is necessary. In fact, the Plaintiff Mandram itself ought to have impleaded the villagers of Virayadhakandan Village for full and complete adjudication. When the Plaintiff has not chosen to implead the necessary parties, namely, Virayadhakandan villagers, the learned District Munsif was right in allowing the application to implead the Respondents 1 and 2. 13. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed the application for impleading themselves in their individual capacity. However, averments are made in the petition that they are interested in protecting the interest of the villagers of Virayadhakandan Village. There is nothing to doubt the bonafide of the respondents 1 and 2 in protecting the interest of Virayadhakandan Village. 14. The points urged in the grounds of Revision do not merit acceptance. The order of allowing the Application ordering impleading of Respondents 1 and 2 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in this Revision. 15. There is nothing to doubt the bonafide of the respondents 1 and 2 in protecting the interest of Virayadhakandan Village. 14. The points urged in the grounds of Revision do not merit acceptance. The order of allowing the Application ordering impleading of Respondents 1 and 2 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in this Revision. 15. Therefore,the Order of the District Munsif,Manamadurai made in I.A.408/99 in O.S.122/97 (Dated 3.9.1999) is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As the suit is of the year 1997, the trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit. All the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court in early disposal of the suit. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order costs.