JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Om learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Rishi Chadha learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 18.5.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra in Original Suit No. 289 of 2015 as well as the revisional order dated 16.4.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9 Agra in Civil Revision No. 17 of 2015 and the order dated 22.4.2015 passed on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as defendants in civil suit No. 289 of 2016. It is contended that the land in question was purchased by the respondent No. 2 on 18.1.2012 and thereafter the petitioner filed suit No. 219 of 2012 for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction in which they had impleaded the erstwhile owner of the property as defendants but subsequently the respondent No. 2 was also impleaded. It is contended that the injunction order was granted in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent applied for sanction of the building construction plan which was sanctioned by the Agra Development Authority subject to certain conditions. It is contended that in the garb of the conditional sanctioned plan, respondent No. 2 started raising construction for which notice/order for demolition was given by the Agra Development Authority, therefore, the respondent filed suit No. 289 of 2015 in which Agra Development Authority was arrayed as defendant and not the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had moved impleadment application for being impleaded as party as he was a necessary party inasmuch as in case the respondent No. 2 gives permission for road widening by the Agra Development Authority, petitioner's interest would be adversely affected, which application has been rejected and the revision has also been dismissed on the ground that it is against an interlocutory order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is because of the condition which has been imposed by the Agra Development Authority as well as sanctioning map in view of the injunction order granted by the court below in the suit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit filed by the defendant against the Agra Development Authority to protect his interest. Sri Rishi Chadha learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 states that the respondent No. 2 has honoured the injunction order and has not made any construction on the part which is the subject matter of the suit filed by the petitioner. It is contended that the suit filed by the respondent No. 2 is against the Agra Development Authority against the notice/order of demolition passed against the respondent No. 2 in which the petitioner is not a necessary party and it is only to harass the respondent No. 2 that repeated applications are being moved by the petitioner. It is further argued that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any future action by the Agra Development Authority or any other person, he may file separate suit but they are not necessary party in the suit filed by the respondent being suit No. 289 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to provision of Order 4A CPC and has argued that when two or more suits/proceedings are pending in the same court, same may be clubbed together and heard together. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Om and Sri Rishi Chadha and after perusing the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application under Order 4A CPC, as it has been contended that both the suits are pending the same court between the same parties, for redressal of his grievances, if so advised. Petition accordingly disposed of.