JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.2.2015 passed by Addl. District Judge, Dausa, in Regular First Appeal No. 16/2011. 2. The brief facts noticed are that against the judgment and decree dated 22.8.2009 an appeal was filed by the respondent Somnath Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. along with the leave to file appeal before the District Judge, Dausa, which was subsequently transferred to Addl. District Judge, Dausa. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, an application was filed by Kamla Devi, non-petitioner No. 1 herein, under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading her as party in the appeal, and similar applications were also filed by non-petitioner No.2 Dalpat Singh and Smt. Sita Devi, non-petitioner No. 3. The claim of these persons was that they had purchased plots from Somnath Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., who had purchased land bearing khasra no.1108 from the plaintiff-petitioner, Fakir Mohammad, and defendants in the suit who were jointly khatedars of the said land by an agreement to sell and power of attorney. It was further claimed by the said persons that they are in possession of the said plots and are, therefore, necessary parties in the appeal. It was also claimed that Smt. Kamla Devi, respondent No.1 herein, had also filed a suit for specific performance against Somnath Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., in which the petitioner has also been made as a party defendant in the said suit and, therefore, whatever the right claimed by the applicant are to be decided in the suit. The trial court, after hearing the parties vide the impugned order dated 26.2.2015 after considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, allowed the applications of Smt. Kamla Devi, Dalpat Singh and Smt. Sita Devi, respectively under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC only to the extent that they were impleaded as "proforma respondents" which has been assailed herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are not at all affected parties and neither in possession nor have any right, title or interest in the said land, and hence the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are not at all affected parties and neither in possession nor have any right, title or interest in the said land, and hence the order impugned deserves to be set aside. It was further contended that decree has already been passed in favour of the petitioner and even the society, namely Somnath Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. does not have any right in the property and even if the society has certain rights, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have no concern. It is further contended that the agreement, if any, is of 1992 and the claim made after 23 years, is also barred by limitation. It is further claimed that the agreement, if any, is forged and fabricated and even the said agreement cannot be said to be of any value, or worth consideration. Even if the language of the said agreement is to be read, only Rs. 32,000/- was paid as against an amount of more than Rs. 1,32,000/-, and unless full amount was paid, no right could confer on the society, or even on respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and thus it was contended that the order of the trial court to implead them as "proforma respondents" was unjust and bad in law. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments:- Kuldeep Singh Rathore & Another v. Jalam Singh & Others, SB CWP No. 3535/2015 decided on 24.4.2015 . Arun Kumar Jain & Others v. Smt. Chhoti Devi & Others, SB CWP No. 9247/2014 decided on 26.11.2014 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents are necessary parties and the Appellate Court has rightly held that even if the respondents, namely Smt. Kamla Devi, Dalpat Singh and Smt. Sita Devi are impleaded as "proforma respondents", nature of appeal does not change and no new facts are to be adjudicated. It was contended that even if they are impleaded as "proforma respondents" scope of the appeal will not be enlarged. It was further pleaded that they had rightful claim to be actual respondents rather than "proforma respondents" and to that extent they contend that the order of the Tribunal is not proper. It was contended that even if they are impleaded as "proforma respondents" scope of the appeal will not be enlarged. It was further pleaded that they had rightful claim to be actual respondents rather than "proforma respondents" and to that extent they contend that the order of the Tribunal is not proper. In support of their contention, counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments:- Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Association v. Government of Andhra Pradesh And Others, (2009) 9 SCC 489 . Amit Kumar Shaw and Another v. Farida Khatoon and another, AIR 2005 SC 2209 . Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and Another, AIR 2004 SC 2006 . 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, and carefully perused the judicial pronouncements cited by the parties, and in my view the judicial pronouncements are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 6. Impleadment of Smt. Kamla Devi, Dalpat Singh and Smt. Sita Devi merely as "proforma respondents" in the appeal could not be said to prejudice any right of the petitioner, which calls for any interference under the limited supervisory jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is to be kept in mind by the appellate court that by such inclusion the scope of the appeal is not enlarged and the adjudication is limited to resolve controversy between the contesting parties. The contention of the respondents-non petitioners that they ought to be impleaded "contesting respondents" instead of "proforma respondents" deserves to be rejected for they have not assailed the impugned order. 7. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******