JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Aggrieved by order dated 26.4.2011, Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the said order. By the said order, the trial court has allowed application Annexure P/3 moved by respondents no. 4 to 13 herein under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for impleading them as party to the suit which has been instituted by plaintiffs/petitioners against respondents no. 1 to 3 only as defendants and thereby ordering impleadment of respondents no. 4 to 13 as party to the suit. 2. Respondents no. 1 to 3/defendants are Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and its Authorities. Plaintiffs in the suit instituted vide plaint Annexure P/1 have challenged notice issued by defendants regarding opening of gate on rear side by the plaintiffs in SCO No. 317, Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal. Defendants in their written statement Annexure P/2 pleaded that residents of Houses No. 47 to 62, Sector 20, HUDA, Kaithal had given written application to the defendants against the intended opening of rear side gate by the plaintiffs in their SCO and on spot inspection, the plaintiffs were asked not to open the gate on back side but they did not bother and therefore, impugned notice was issued. 3. Respondents no. 4 to 13 in their application Annexure P/3 alleged that they being residents of the aforesaid houses at the back of SCO of the plaintiffs are the effected persons by opening of the disputed gate by plaintiffs and it was on their application that defendants had issued notice to the plaintiffs and therefore, respondents no. 4 to 13 claimed to be necessary party to the suit. 4. Plaintiffs by filing reply Annexure P/4 resisted the application and controverted the averments of the applicants. 5. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/5 has allowed application Annexure P/3 and ordered impleadment of the applicants as defendants no. 4 to 13 to the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioners relying on judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar versus Naresh Kumar, 2002(2) PLJ 318 contended that respondents no. 4 to 13 are not proper and necessary party to the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioners relying on judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar versus Naresh Kumar, 2002(2) PLJ 318 contended that respondents no. 4 to 13 are not proper and necessary party to the suit. It was argued that plaintiffs are dominus litus and therefore, respondents no.4 to 13 cannot be impleaded as party to the suit against wishes of the plaintiffs who do not claim any relief against them. 8. The contention has been countered by counsel for the respondents submitting that respondents no. 4 to 13 are proper and necessary party to the suit because it was on their application that defendants had issued impugned notice to the plaintiffs. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) is completely distinguishable on facts because in that case, the applicants, who had moved application for impleading them as party to the suit, had already filed separate civil suit regarding the same subject matter. So, their rights were to be adjudicated in the separate suit. In the instant case, however, it is not so. 10. Respondents no. 4 to 13 are the effected persons and are, therefore, proper and necessary party to the suit because decision of the lis would have bearing on their rights. It has come in the written statement Annexure P/2 filed by the defendants that notice issued by the defendants, which is under challenge in the suit, had been issued pursuant to application submitted by respondents no. 4 to 13 and others. Respondents no. 4 to 13 have their houses at the back of SCO of the plaintiffs and therefore, rear gate in the said SCO might have adverse bearing on the residential rights of respondents no. 4 to 13. In this view of the matter, respondents no. 4 to 13 have been rightly ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit. Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, a person if found to be proper or necessary party to the suit may be impleaded as such even against the wishes of the plaintiff. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no merit in this revision petition. 4 to 13 have been rightly ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit. Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, a person if found to be proper or necessary party to the suit may be impleaded as such even against the wishes of the plaintiff. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on merits of the suit.