JUDGMENT K. C. Puri, J. (Oral).:- This is a revision petition against the order dated 23.01.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat vide which the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the petitioners as defendants , was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Mewa Singh has challenged the judgment and decree dated 14.06.1985 passed in C.S. No.531 of 1985 on various grounds. The present applicant who happened to be the real brother of Mewa Singh filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiff has not opposed the application but the defendant opposed the said application and ultimately the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not necessary part and consequently, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed. 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order, the present revision petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Mewa Singh is a dominus-litus. He has not opposed the application moved by the present petitioners. So, in these circumstances the learned trial Court has committed grave error in dismissing the application. It is further contended that the petitioners are co-sharers and shall be effected by passing the judgment, so they are necessary party. The trial Court should have accepted the application. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records. 6. The above noted arguments looks attractive but the same is without any force. The dispute in the case pending before the trial Court is regarding the validity of judgment and decree dated 14.06.1985. The present petitioners shall not be anyway effected by the outcome of that litigation as their share remains intact in respect of joint land. So they are not the necessary party. 7. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiff has not opposed the application and as such, the application should have been accepted, that contention is also without any force. Even the defendant has right to oppose the inclusion of a party. It is not disputed that the present petitioners are real brothers of plaintiff-Mewa Singh. So, in these circumstances the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application holding that same has been filed in order to help the plaintiff. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. Even the defendant has right to oppose the inclusion of a party. It is not disputed that the present petitioners are real brothers of plaintiff-Mewa Singh. So, in these circumstances the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application holding that same has been filed in order to help the plaintiff. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. --------------