JUDGMENT : Anil Sharma, J.:- Since the revision relates to impleading of necessary party in first appeal in which names of respondent No.5 to 16 have been deleted on the prayer of respondents No.1 to 4 as they were performa parties and were defendants in the original suit alongwith other defendants who are appellants in the Civil Appeal No.11-A/10, therefore, the arguments of both the parties heard on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Ram Krishna Ghosh and Others Vs. Roop Chand Molla and others, (1997) 10 SCC 307 . in which it has been held that if the plaintiff/appellant has not impleaded the defendant as party before the Supreme Court, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Another judgment in the matter of Ch. Surat Singh (Dead) and others Vs. Manoharlal and others, 1970 STPL (LE) 5443 SC has also been cited on the same ground. All the judgments cited above by the learned counsel for the revisionists relates to appeal by some of the plaintiffs. So far as the appeal by defendant is concerned there is specific provision under Order XLI Rule 4 of CPC which reads as under: "One of Several plaintiffs or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all:- Where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the Appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be". On bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that out of several defendants or plaintiffs some of them may file appeal against the judgment and lower appellant Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour at all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be. Therefore, the order passed by learned lower appellate Court cannot be said to be illegal or irregular in the light of Rule 4 of Order XLI of CPC. Thus, no interference under the revisional jurisdiction can be made in the order impugned. Therefore, the order passed by learned lower appellate Court cannot be said to be illegal or irregular in the light of Rule 4 of Order XLI of CPC. Thus, no interference under the revisional jurisdiction can be made in the order impugned. However, it is directed that learned lower appellate Court shall consider the provision of Order XLI Rule 4 of CPC with regard to other defendants (respondents No. 8 to 16) whose names have been deleted by the order of learned lower appellate Court.