ORDER 1. This revision under section 77(14) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, for short “the Act”, has been preferred against order dated 27.7.2013 passed by Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Morena in Case No.80(A)04/13-14, whereby application moved by non-applicants No.3-8 under Order 1 rule 10 CPC for being impleaded in the proceedings has been allowed. 2. The case (Case No.80(A)04/13-14) pending before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Morena has been registered on a petition submitted by the present applicant under section 80-A of “the Act”, challenging order dated 4.4.2013 of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies whereby Board of Directors of Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Chaina, Jaura, District Morena has been put under supervision appointing an Officer-in-charge to look after the functioning of the society. 3. Non-applicants No.3-8 moved an application before the Joint Registrar seeking impleadment on the round that they are Directors of the Society. The application was opposed by the present applicant, however, the Joint Registrar vide the impugned order allowed the application and directed that non-applicants No.3-8 to be arrayed as applicant in the revision petition. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order passed by the Joint Registrar is without jurisdiction because in exercise of revisional jurisdiction he was simply required to examine the legality and propriety of order passed by the Deputy Registrar whereby the Board of Directors of the Society was placed under suspension. Hence, the order deserves to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for non-applicants No.3-7 has supported the impugned order contending that being Directors of the Society respondents No.3-8 are necessary party for decision of the case. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Obviously, the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Joint Registrar has been invoked by the applicant under section 80-A of “the Act”, for examining the legality and properitary of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. The revisional proceedings are not in the nature of regular suit where rights and liabilities of the parties are to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. The revisional proceedings are not in the nature of regular suit where rights and liabilities of the parties are to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction revisional authority is required to examine the legality and correctness of the impugned order, which may not require impleadment of a person as a party unless he was a party before the lower forum. Non-applicants No.3-8 may challenge the order of the Deputy Registrar, if so advised, in there own way. However, the applicant cannot be forced to keep non-applicants No.3-8 as applicants in the proceeding initiated by him. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the learned Joint Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering impleadment of non-applicants No.3-8 as applicant in the revision proceedings pending before him. 9. Therefore, the impugned order, being without jurisdiction deserves to be, and is hereby set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.