JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 25.11.13 passed by the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar in Civil Original Suit No.65/12, whereby an application preferred by the applicant-Anil Kumar, the respondent no.13 herein, for impleading him as party plaintiff in the suit, stands allowed and he has been impleaded as party defendant no.16 in the suit. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent no.13 herein, preferred an application for impleading him as party plaintiff in the suit filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 5 herein, under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC'). The impleadment was sought on behalf of the respondent-applicant stating that he is interested in the suit preferred questioning the legality of the patta of the disputed land and therefore, he may be impleaded as plaintiff in the suit filed in public interest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has seriously erred in allowing the application preferred by the respondent-applicant without there being any averments in the application filed as to why he should be impleaded as party to the suit. Learned counsel submitted that non-speaking order passed by the court below impleading the respondent-applicant as party defendant in the suit apparently suffers from non-application of mind and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant submitted that the suit preferred by the plaintiffs being a representative suit under Order I Rule 8, the order impugned passed by the court below impleading the applicant as party does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. It is true that as per the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC, the Court may at any stage add a person as party to the suit as defendant or plaintiff, whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. But then, in exercise of the the power conferred, the court cannot implead a person as party to the suit on mere asking. But then, in exercise of the the power conferred, the court cannot implead a person as party to the suit on mere asking. A perusal of the application preferred by the petitioner reveals that while giving the details of the controversy involved in the suit all that has been stated that in the suit preferred in the public interest, he may also be impleaded as plaintiff in the suit. Merely because the petitioner is resident of town where the disputed property is situated, he does not acquire any right to be impleaded as plaintiff in the suit. That apart, merely because the suit is filed in the public interest does not mean that anybody applying for impleading as plaintiff to the suit shall be impleaded, as prayed for. 7. It is pertinent to note that while deciding the application all that has been recorded by the trial court in the order is that the respondent-applicant is impleaded as party defendant no.16 in the suit. There is absolutely no reason assign as to why the respondent-applicant, who has applied for impleading as plaintiff in the suit has been permitted to be added as defendant in the suit. To say the least, the cryptic order passed by the court below in most casual manner without even considering the contents of the application and the prayer made therein, cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 25.11.13 passed by the court below impleading the applicant-Anil Kumar, respondent no.13 herein, as party defendant in the suit is set aside. The application preferred by the applicant-Anil Kumar for impleading him as plaintiff in the suit shall stand rejected. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******