Judgment: Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 27.9.2013 passed in MJC No.3/2013 by Second Civil Judge Class 1 Katna; whereby, an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') has been rejected. 3. MJC is an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directed against the respondents no.1 to 12 for alleged breach of injunction granted by the trial Court on 23.2.2012 in Civil Suit No.111-A/11. 4. Petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and sought impleadment of the Advocate who drafted reply to application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC on behalf of non-applicants. Impleadment of advocate was sought on the allegation that the counsel has not adverted to correct facts in his reply. Trial Court, by impugned order, rejected the application holding that allegation of breach which is subject matter of MJC is not against the counsel and the counsel drafted the reply on the basis of instructions given by the party. Therefore, he cannot be put at par with the party to the lis as would warrant an action under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC. 5. Though it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that trial Court has committed gross folly in rejecting the application; however, when the entire facts are taken into consideration that the counsel has only signed the reply to application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC which, on the face of it, has been drafted on the basis of instructions by the party and no material has been commended at to establish that the counsel who has drafted the reply had any role to play in committing the alleged breach of injunction, conclusions arrived at the trial Court cannot be faulted with. 6. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.