JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II, J. The present revision has been filed under section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgement and order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Pratapgarh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1994 arising from Regular Suit No. 408 of 1984. 2. By way of impugned order, application 32-C was rejected by the court concerned. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and perused the entire record. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist's interest in the bhumidhari land of the plaintiff is being disturbed by the trial court without entering into the question of actual ownership of the plot in question. Since the revisionist is necessary party to the case so the impugned order was wrongly passed. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 submitted that revisionist was neither the party to the trial court proceedings and no injunction was sought against them and the suit was essentially of permanent injunction. Therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, finding cannot be disturbed. 6. It will appear from record that Suit No. 418 of 1984 (Madho Prasad vs. Rajendra Prasad and others) was filed for injunction in connection with the disputed property. The suit was subsequently partly decreed on 27.8.1994 by which the court had issued prohibitory injunction against the defendant of plot no. 163 and also issued a mandatory injunction for removing certain constructions. 7. An appeal being appeal no. 127 of 1994 was preferred by Madho Prasad and thereafter an application 32-C was moved under Order 1 Rule X sub-clause (2) 151 CPC which was rejected on 28.8.2010. It is surprising that the present revisionist who are not party to the trial court proceedings, did not move any application for impleadment or otherwise during the whole long period of 10 years. Again around almost 16 years, no application was moved in appeal and subsequently the aforesaid application was moved which was disposed of by the court. 8. The trial court was of the view that the sole purpose of moving the application is just to delay the proceedings and since the revisionists were not party to the trial court proceedings, so no useful purpose will be served in making them the party in appeal. 9. 8. The trial court was of the view that the sole purpose of moving the application is just to delay the proceedings and since the revisionists were not party to the trial court proceedings, so no useful purpose will be served in making them the party in appeal. 9. Admittedly, the original suit was of the nature of injunction only and no cause of action was alleged against any third party. More then 28 years have gone since the original suit was filed and no convincing reasons have been shown by the revisionist as to why the court proceedings were not contested, if someone is not arrayed as a party in the proceedings then the verdict will not be binding on him. The finding recorded by the court below is neither illegal nor arbitrary and therefore while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, no interference is warranted. 10. The revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 11. The civil revision is dismissed with costs. 12. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.