JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—The present revision is under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of ACMM Vth Kanpur Nagar dated 1.9.2009, by which the impleadment application filed by the respondent No. 2 has been allowed in suit No. 1120 of 2006. 2. It appears that suit No. 1120 of 2006 was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the respondent No. 1. Later on the respondent No. 2 moved an application for the withdrawal of the suit as not pressed. The revisionist moved amendment application in the suit and prayed that since his interest is involved in the matter, therefore, he may be permitted to prosecute the suit. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 3.5.2007 and M/s J.A. Constructions has been permitted to prosecute the suit. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 moved an impleadment application which has been allowed by the impugned order. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent No. 2 is the owner of plot No. 374, Scheme No. 1, Kakadeo, Kanpur. The respondent No. 2 entered into builder agreement with M/s J.A. Constructions, 113/41 Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur on 24.12.2003 for the construction of the multi-storeyed residential apartment over the aforesaid land. At the time of execution of the agreement M/s J.A. Constructions has paid a sum of Rs. 5,08,500/- to M/s Arunanand Engineering India Private Limited and under the agreement construction has to be completed within eighteen months from the date of sanction of the map by Kanpur Development Authority. The map was sanctioned in the name of M/s Arunanand Engineering India Private Limited, the respondent No. 2 under the signature of Sameer Gupta. Under the agreement in case of any dispute the same would be settled through Ghanshyam Das Gupta. It appears that Smt. Suprabha Karamkar whose building is adjacent to the plot of respondent No. 2 has made complaint to Kanpur Development Authority, on which the Kanpur Development Authority has sealed the construction premises on 23.12.2004. Later on revised map was furnished and compounding fee was deposited. However, Smt. Suprabha Karamkar filed suit No. 1474 of 2004 against M/s J.A. Constructions, in which ex-parte interim order has been passed restraining M/s J.A. Constructions to raise any further constructions. The said order has been vacated on 18.5.2005. Later on revised map was furnished and compounding fee was deposited. However, Smt. Suprabha Karamkar filed suit No. 1474 of 2004 against M/s J.A. Constructions, in which ex-parte interim order has been passed restraining M/s J.A. Constructions to raise any further constructions. The said order has been vacated on 18.5.2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, Smt. Suprabha Karamkar filed appeal No. 90 of 2005, which has been dismissed on 10.11.2006, Smt. Suprabaha Karamkar filed contempt petition against Sameer Gupta, Sumeet Singh and Jayesh Sonkar and Kanpur Development Authority. 4. For the construction of the building, the map has been sanctioned by the Kanpur Development Authority. It appears that M/s J.A. Constructions has committed certain irregularities, therefore, Kanpur Development Authority has sealed the building on 23.12.2004, which has been later on unsealed. It appears that M/s J.A. Constructions has moved an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which has been rejected by District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Being aggrieved by the said order, M/s J.A. Constructions filed the appeal before this Court, in which as an interim measure, parties have been directed to maintain the status quo. It appears that M/s J.A. Constructions and the respondent No. 2 filed various cases in different courts, which are pending. It appears that for the purpose of the construction, the respondent No. 2 has given Power of Attorney to M/s J.A. Constructions and on the basis of the Power of Attorney, M/s J.A. Constructions was representing the respondent No. 2. The said Power of Attorney has been cancelled on 25.07.2005. Despite the cancellation of the Power of Attorney, M/s J.A. Constructions filed the present suit in the name of respondent No. 2 against Kanpur Development Authority, After the knowledge of the aforesaid case, the respondent No. 2 moved an application for the dismissal of the suit as not pressed, which has been rejected. Later on the respondent No. 2 filed impleadment application, which has been allowed by the impugned order. A.C.M.M. Vth Kanpur Nagar allowed the impleadment application on the ground that the respondent No. 2 is the owner of the land. Initially the suit was filed in the name of the respondent No. 2 against Kanpur Development Authority on the basis of the Power of Attorney and the result of the suit may affect the respondent No. 2, therefore, the respondent No. 2 is the necessary party. 5. Initially the suit was filed in the name of the respondent No. 2 against Kanpur Development Authority on the basis of the Power of Attorney and the result of the suit may affect the respondent No. 2, therefore, the respondent No. 2 is the necessary party. 5. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist submitted that in the suit no relief has been claimed against the respondent No. 2 and it is the choice of the plaintiff to make anyone as party and to claim relief against the said party and not to make anyone as party. He submitted that no relief has been claimed against the respondent No. 2, therefore, the impleadment application allowed by the court below is legally unjustified. In support of the contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundaumal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, 1992 (2) AWC 1134 and in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation v. Amrit M. Patel (dead) through LRs and others, AIR 1998 SC 2542 . 6. I have gone through impugned order and considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist. 7. In the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundaumal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others (supra) under the dealership agreement, Ramesh Hiranand Kundaumal (hereinafter referred to as “RHK”) was in possession of the service station erected on the land held by the second respondent, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as lessee. The service station consists of a petrol pump in the ground floor and a structure with an open terrace for parking of vehicles. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued notice under Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act for the demolition of two chattels on the terrace on the ground that these were unauthorised constructions. RHK filed appeal before the Civil Court, Bombay challenging the validity of the notice and for the injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structure. The interim injunction was granted by the Court. RHK moved an application for the impleadment, which has been contested by RHK. The impleadment application was allowed and the matter went to the Apex Court. On the facts and circumstances, the Apex Court held that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited was not the necessary party to be impleaded. The interim injunction was granted by the Court. RHK moved an application for the impleadment, which has been contested by RHK. The impleadment application was allowed and the matter went to the Apex Court. On the facts and circumstances, the Apex Court held that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited was not the necessary party to be impleaded. The Apex Court held that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of litigation whether the question relating to moveable or immoveable property. It has been further held that it is necessary that a person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. The Apex Court further held that the court below have assumed that the subject matter of the litigation is the structure erected by the respondent or in other words the service station which has been allowed to be operated upon by the plaintiff under the terms of the dealership agreement. The notice does not relate to that structure but is in relation to the two chattles stated to have been erected by the present appellant unauthorisedly. According to the appellant these chattles/structures are moveable on wheels and plates where servicing and/or repairs are done and used for storing implements of the machines. The second respondent has no interest in these chattles and the demolition of the same in pursuance to the notice is not a matter which affects the legal rights of the respondent. Therefore, the court below failed to note that the second respondent has no direct interest in the subject matter of litigation. 8. In the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation v. Amrit M. Patel (dead) through LRs. and others (supra) the suit was filed by the builder for the specific performance of agreement to develop land against land owner. The developer with whom builder had entered into separate agreement seeking impleadment as plaintiff. The application has been rejected and upheld by the Apex Court on the ground that the developer has nothing to do with the subject matter of suit, which was in the nature of specific performance arises out of agreement between the builder and the land owner. 9. The application has been rejected and upheld by the Apex Court on the ground that the developer has nothing to do with the subject matter of suit, which was in the nature of specific performance arises out of agreement between the builder and the land owner. 9. In my view the aforesaid two cases are not applicable to the present case. 10. In the present case, the respondent No. 2 is the owner of the land on which the construction is to be carried on. The applicant, Power of Attorney holder has moved an application for the sanction of the map to the Kanpur Development Authority and was raising the construction over the land of the respondent No. 2, therefore, any illegal construction over the land or any kind of dispute with the Kanpur Development Authority will affect the interest and right of the respondent No. 2, the land owner. The suit was originally filed by the applicant in the name of respondent No. 2 as Power of Attorney holder. Subsequently, on the amendment application being allowed, the applicant has been permitted to continue with the suit, therefore, at every stage the interest of the respondent No. 2 in the entire matter is involved and the decision in the suit may affect the right of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, in my view, the court below has rightly allowed the impleadment application and the respondent No. 2 has been rightly impleaded as party in the suit. In the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundaumal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others (supra), the notice by the Municipal Corporation was issued in respect of unauthorised construction made by them and not in respect of other part of the construction carried on by RHK. The notice was issued to RHK and on these facts it was found that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has no interest in the unauthorised construction and demolition of the same. While in the present case, in case, if the unauthorised construction is being carried on, on account of any reason, it would be perpetual problem to the respondent No. 2 and will affect the right of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, this case is not applicable on the facts of the present case. While in the present case, in case, if the unauthorised construction is being carried on, on account of any reason, it would be perpetual problem to the respondent No. 2 and will affect the right of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, this case is not applicable on the facts of the present case. The case of Ajmera Housing Corporation v. Amrit M. Patel (dead) through LRs and others (supra) is also not applicable to the prsent case as it is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 11. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merit in the present revision. The revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed. ————