JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-07-2007, passed by District Judge, Haridwar on application 21 An misc. case No. 22 of 2006, whereby said application for amendment of application under Section 92 C.P.C., was allowed to induct the new applicants. 3. Brief facts of the case are that applicant / respondent No. 1 along with some other persons, moved an application under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for leave to institute a suit in respect of a religious / charitable trust. Before said application could be allowed, three of the applicants withdrew their names from the application. In that circumstance, applicant No. 1 along with two others, moved an application for impleadment of respondents No. 2 and 3 in the application in place of the applicants, who have withdrawn the application. The said application was allowed by the court below. 4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the moment the other three, applicants withdrew from the application under Section 92 C.P.C., the same got rendered not maintainable on behalf of only one person, and the court below should have rejected the said application then and there, and life cannot be permitted to be infused in a dead application. 5. This Court, after considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, feels that the impugned order by which amendment application, moved on behalf of respondent No. 1 along with respondents No.2 and 3, was allowed, for the impleadment of respondents No.2 and 3, as applicants, does not suffer from any illegality. In view of provisions of Section 141 read with Order I Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 C.P.C., the other applicants (respondents No.2 and 3) having interest in the trust property can be permitted to be impleaded particularly in view of the fact that three of the original four applicants withdrew their names from the application, moved under Section 92 C.P.C. No doubt, had the court below dismissed the application under Section 92 C.P.C. on that very day when out of four original three applicants withdrew from the application, applicant No. 1 (present respondent No.1) would have no other option but to move fresh application along with other applicants, seeking relief to institute the suit. But in the present case, the court below did not prefer to dismiss the application on that very day and it remained lying for some three months when the amendment application in question was moved to induct respondents No. 2 and 3 to prosecute the application (under Section 92 C.P.C.) with applicant (respondent No. 1). in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the court below has committed any error of law in allowing the amendment application, as when the application under Section 92 was filed, the same was maintainable as it was moved on behalf of the four persons (i.e. more than two persons) and on the date when the leave is to be accepted or refused again now there are more than two persons, prosecuting the application. Ultimately object of procedural law is to show path to do the justice and not to deny it. 6. Therefore, the order dated 10-072007, passed by the court below in misc. application No. 22 of 2006, does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. (All pending applications in this case also stand disposed of).