JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Part - VII Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for quashing or setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2002 of the learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur at Imphal in Revenue Tribunal Appeal Case No. 2 of 1998 and the impugned letter dated 01.10.2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal issued in pursuance of the judgment and order mentioned above. 2. Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents and Mr. S. Devajit, learned counsel for the private respondents. 3. The main grounds on which the petitioners have prayed for quashing or setting aside the said impugned judgment and order and the impugned letter are that the petitioners in this case are also interested parties on the subject matter in dispute before the learned Tribunal, therefore, are also necessary party, but since they were not made a party, the judgment and order passed in that case cannot be allowed to stand, and secondly, the subject matter of dispute has been directly and substantially dealt with and decided upon by the learned Tribunal, Manipur in Revenue Revision case No. 6 of 1980, and in Revenue Revision Case No. 28 of 1996 and in Civil Rule No. 454 of 1988 before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, therefore, is barred by Res Judicata as provided under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the case as submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioners are given in brief here below : 4. That, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal vide his order No. 10/129/DC(Tbl)/Rev/86 dated 12/2/1987 and order No. 10/9/DC/(Tbl)/Rev/87 dated 16.02.1988 allotted plots of land situated within 44 Yaithibi Khunnou to 33 persons and 23 others respectively, which includes the present petitioners with the concurrence of the Government conveyed vide letter 23/8/87-R dated 11.02.1987 and vide letter No. 23/19/1987 dated 12.01.1988 of the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur. Following the allotment order issued, the petitioners in this Revision Petition paid all the necessary premium and charges payable under the law and thereafter, they were issued Pattas for their respective allotted land. And since then, they have continued to pay their respective land revenues. 5. Following the allotment order issued, the petitioners in this Revision Petition paid all the necessary premium and charges payable under the law and thereafter, they were issued Pattas for their respective allotted land. And since then, they have continued to pay their respective land revenues. 5. That, on 30.04.1971, the Deputy Commissioner (Central) Manipur allotted several plots of land in favour of 992 persons including the respondents No. 4 - 16 in this case vide order No. 301/R/Loushipat/Settle Imphal in the village No. 61/Loushipat. Therefore, to avoid any confusion, the Deputy Commissioner (Central) Manipur issued a notification dated 22.10.1979 notifying that village No. 44 (Yaithibi Khunnou) does not lie within Loushipat area. In order to redress any grievances relating to the allotment of land at Loushipat, a team consisting of S.D.O. Thoubal, S.D.O. Kakching and S.O./Revenue had a sitting at Sora Village for 3 (three) days continuously commencing from 06.05.1987 during office hours. But none of the 992 allottees of Loushipat area appeared before the officials. Therefore, it was concluded that none of them have any problem relating to the allotment and in taking of possession over their respective allotted lands. In that sitting, however, 29 allottees from Yaithibi Khunnou appeared and their representations were disposed of summarily by issuing necessary orders on the spot. This is as per vide general order dated 02.07.1987 of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal. 6. That, the respondent Nos. 4 - 16, along with some others filed a Revenue Revision Petition in the year 1987 before the learned Tribunal Manipur challenging the allotment order dated 12.02.1987 of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal by which 33 persons were allotted land in the Yaithibi Khunnou Village Number 44 as mentioned earlier and the same was registered as Revenue Revision Case No. 43 of 1987. After hearing the parties, the Learned Tribunal disposed of the same by his order dated 17.09.1998 affirming the validity of the allotment order but dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners (respondent nos. 4 -16 in this case). Not satisfied with the order of the Revenue Tribunal, the respondents No. 4 - 16 filed a petition before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench challenging the allotment order dated 12.02.1987 of the Deputy Commissioner and also the said Judgment and order dated 17.09.1998 of the learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur. The same was registered as Civil Rule No. 454 of 1988. The same was registered as Civil Rule No. 454 of 1988. The respondents No. 4 - 16 who were petitioners in this case did not appear, therefore, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution by the order dated 03.09.1996 of the said Hon’ble High Court. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal after obtaining or receiving approval of the Government as conveyed by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue, Government of Manipur) vide his letter dated 16.06.1997 issued an order dated 16.10.1997 cancelling the Pattas of 33 persons including that of the respondents No. 4 - 16 pertaining to Village No. 44 - Yaithibi of Thoubal District. The respondents No. 4 - 16 filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur praying for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal dated 06.10.1997 mentioned above. The same was registered as Tribunal Appeal Case No. 2 of 1998. The State of Manipur, the Secretary Revenue, Government of Manipur, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal District and the Sub-Deputy Collector, Heirok, Thoubal District were arrayed as respondents but the petitioners in this present Civil Revision Case were not made a party/parties. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment and order which is under challenge in this revision case. The operative portion of the judgment and order reads as follows : “For the reasons stated above, the order in respect of the agricultural lands of the appellants viz. (i) under Patta No. 44/136, covered by Dag No. 502/277, measuring 2.50 acres, (ii) under Patta No. 44/173, covered by Dag No. 1073/276, measuring 2.50 acres, (iii) under Patta No. 44/175, covered by Dag No. 1077/279, measuring 2.50 acres, (iv) under Patta No. 44/189, covered by Dag No. 1177/325, measuring 2.50 acres, (v) under Patta No. 44/159, covered by Dag No. 1186/280, measuring 2.50 acres, (vi) under Patta No. 44/129, covered by Dag No. 1195/284, measuring 2.50 acres, (vii) under Patta No. 44/156, covered by Dag No. 1206/305, measuring 2.50 acres, (viii) under Patta No. 44/186, covered by Dag No. 1226/323, measuring 2.50 acres, (ix) under Patta No. 44/130, covered by Dag No. 1213/283, measuring 2.50 acres, (x) under Patta No. 44/178, covered by Dag No. 1227/285, measuring 2.50 acres and (xi) under Patta No. 44/133, covered by Dag No. 1263/290, measuring 2.90 acres is not sustainable in law. Hence, the appeal in respect of the agricultural lands mentioned above is allowed. Hence, the appeal in respect of the agricultural lands mentioned above is allowed. The impugned order in respect of the above mentioned agricultural lands is set aside. The names of the appellants No. 1 to 4, 6 to 13 and late Maibam Khoijao Singh, the father of appellant No. 5 be restored in the relevant land record, in respect of their agricultural lands. The correction of the land records be made after the six months from the date of this order. Both parties are to bear their own cost. The record be sent back. Announced in the open court.” 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents/appellants have been challenging or seeking for cancellation of the allotment orders issued in favour of the petitioners in different forums and in all those forums, they have failed to achieve their goal. Therefore, without making them a party, went to the learned Tribunal and filed the Tribunal Appeal Case No. 2 of 1998, concealing all the facts & circumstances and stealthily without the knowledge of the petitioners. The learned Tribunal without considering the necessary parties in the dispute, admitted the petition and passed the impugned order which affects the right and title of the petitioners over the land allotted to them. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside for non-joinder of necessary parties and sent back the record to the learned Tribunal to try the case afresh after bringing in the petitioners as party. Learned counsel also submitted that a judgment and order passed behind the back of necessary parties cannot be allowed to stand, for doing so, will mean causing injustice to the people who has interest in the subject matter in dispute. The learned counsel in support of his submission regarding necessary parties cited the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.” reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 , relevant Para 6. The same is reproduced here below : “Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The same is reproduced here below : “Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” 9. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 submitted that the appeal before the learned Tribunal was against the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, therefore the petitioners in this case have no locus standi to file the revision petition. And if they are to file, they should have taken leave under Section 96, Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC. Learned counsel elaborated her submission by stating that the petitioners were not a party when the Deputy Commissioner issued the cancellation order dated 06.10.1997 whereby the Pattas of the respondents were cancelled, therefore in the appeal challenging the order before the learned Tribunal they were not a necessary party. As for the Government respondents, they appear before the Tribunal initially but stopped appearing later on, therefore, the judgment and order was passed ex-parte. Learned counsel also submitted that there has been delay in filing this revision since the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 07.06.2002 as such, it ought not to have been admitted. 10. As for the Government respondents, they appear before the Tribunal initially but stopped appearing later on, therefore, the judgment and order was passed ex-parte. Learned counsel also submitted that there has been delay in filing this revision since the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 07.06.2002 as such, it ought not to have been admitted. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General, who appears on behalf of the State respondents referred to the contents of Para 6 of the impugned judgment which reads as follows : “The said new settlement order was issued to 33 individuals at the rate of 2.5 acres, overlapping the original settlement owners of Loushipat area, where the present appellant have been occupying since 1971.” and submitted that by this, it can be concluded that the learned Tribunal was aware that the interest of the 33 persons (petitioners in this case) who were given allotment to the same land under dispute was involved in the appeal filed before him. Therefore, he should have used his discretion to bring in the petitioners as parties which he failed to do. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that one of the grounds taken by the respondents/appellants before the learned Tribunal was that they were not given the opportunity of being heard when the Deputy Commissioner passed the order dated 06.10.1997 but this is wrong representation of facts because the cancellation order was issued after wide notification was issued as may be seen from Para 5 of the order of the Deputy Commissioner itself, which states that show cause notice to 33 Pattadars (respondents and others) have been issued. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances before him and that has led to the passing of the impugned judgment and order. 11. The learned Addl. A.G., Manipur further submitted that the learned Tribunal, even if he had found grounds for setting aside the order of Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, he should have sent back the case record to the Deputy Commissioner before whom only all the relevant records are available, to decide on all the grievances of the petitioners (respondents in this case). The learned Addl. A.G., Manipur further submitted that the learned Tribunal, even if he had found grounds for setting aside the order of Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, he should have sent back the case record to the Deputy Commissioner before whom only all the relevant records are available, to decide on all the grievances of the petitioners (respondents in this case). However, the learned Tribunal did not only set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order but directed that the names of the appellants in the case be restored in the Pattas of the land mentioned therein, this amounts to acting in excess of his jurisdiction. Regarding the leave for filing the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no delay in filing the same since the petitioners came to know the existence of such order only after the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal sent a letter dated 01.10.2014 to the Director Settlement of Land Records for taking action as per the direction of the Revenue Tribunal. 12. Mr. S. Devajit, learned counsel who later on appeared for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the present dispute over the land has come about because of the intention of the Government to establish Sports University in the land under dispute and compensation to be given to the land owners as a consequence. The respondent No.4 has no objection in the construction of the Sports University over the land under dispute, but his only concern is that genuine owners of the lands should be given the compensation they deserved. He also submitted that the respondent No. 4 being one of the allottees amongst the 992 persons who were allotted land in the Yaithibi Loukon has been in possession of his land, but due to the disturbance caused by father of the petitioner No. 18, a suit was filed before the Court of Munsiff, Thoubal wherein the learned Munsiff by the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1994 declared that he is the owner and also restraint the defendant from disturbing his peaceful possession of the land. Thereafter, nobody has challenged ownership over the land allotted to him being Patta No. 44/136 covered by C.S. Dag No. 502/227 of Village No. 44 of Yaithibi Khunnou. Therefore, his title over the Patta land allotted to him is settled. 13. Thereafter, nobody has challenged ownership over the land allotted to him being Patta No. 44/136 covered by C.S. Dag No. 502/227 of Village No. 44 of Yaithibi Khunnou. Therefore, his title over the Patta land allotted to him is settled. 13. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 that before this case is admitted leave of this Court is required under Section 96, Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC. Because all these provisions of law deals with appeal and second appeal but the case at hand is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for exercise of the Court’s revisional jurisdiction. Further, on the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that respondent No. 4 has a decree of the Court of Munsiff, Thoubal regarding his Patta Land being Patta No. 44/136 covered by C.S. Dag No. 502/227 of Village No. 44 of Yaithibi Khunnou, I am of the opinion that this Court sitting in the revisional jurisdiction has no scope of taking that into account. 14. Now, coming to the core of the facts involved in this case, there is no denying the fact that the allotment order of the petitioners in this case were challenged before the learned Tribunal in Revenue Revision Case No. 43 of 1987 and the learned Tribunal by his judgment and order dated 17.09.1988 upheld the allotment of the petitioners. And in that case, the petitioners and respondents were parties. It is also a fact that the judgment and order was challenged before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in C.R. No. 454 of 1988 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Further, there is no denying the fact that the same area of land allotted to the petitioners was the subject matter of the contention before the learned Tribunal in Tribunal Case No. 2 of 1998 in which the impugned judgment and order was passed. All these facts stated above and the chronology of allotment of lands in the Yaithibi Khunnou Village No. 44 and the litigations that followed and orders issued by authorities relating to the same shows that the petitioners’ interest over the land which was the subject matter in the Tribunal Case No. 2 of 1998 was also certainly involved. All these facts stated above and the chronology of allotment of lands in the Yaithibi Khunnou Village No. 44 and the litigations that followed and orders issued by authorities relating to the same shows that the petitioners’ interest over the land which was the subject matter in the Tribunal Case No. 2 of 1998 was also certainly involved. Therefore, one can safely conclude that they were necessary party and they should have been made party in it. Hence, it is not only proper but necessary that they should have been made party in the case. Order 1 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. provides as follows : “Misjoinder and non-joinder. No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. [Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.]” What can be understood from the above provision of law is that when a necessary party is not made a party in a suit for that reason alone, the same shall be defeated. Who is a necessary party has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners “Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.” reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 as follows : “A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively”. In other words, it means, a necessary party is a person or persons without whose impleadment in a case the decree passed in that case can not be executed and therefore, renders the same nugatory. From what has been stated above, the petitioners in this case are persons without whom in the Tribunal Appeal case No.2 of 1998 no effective order could have been passed. From what has been stated above, the petitioners in this case are persons without whom in the Tribunal Appeal case No.2 of 1998 no effective order could have been passed. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC reads as follows : “The Court at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” The above provision of law cast a duty on the Court before whom a litigation is pending to order striking out of a party improperly joined as plaintiff or defendant and also to order impleadment of a persons who ought to have been impleaded as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the case. 15. From the facts and circumstances and the provision of law stated above, there is no doubt that the petitioners in this case are necessary party in the Tribunal Appeal Case No. 2 of 1998, and therefore, they ought to have been impleaded or ordered to have been impleaded as party in that case. Since they were not made party, the judgment and order passed in that case (the impugned judgment and order) is ineffectual or nugatory. For this reason, the impugned judgment and order (judgment and order dated 07.01.2002) of the learned Tribunal passed in Tribunal Appeal Case No. 2 of 1998 cannot be allowed to stand, therefore it is set aside. In consequence, no action should be taken in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 01.10.2014 No. 10/236/DC(Tbl)/Reb/Correction/05/2673 of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal addressed to the Director Settlement Land Record, Manipur. The learned Tribunal shall try the case afresh after impleadment of the petitioners and dispose the case at the earliest. With this, the revision petition is disposed. In consequence, no action should be taken in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 01.10.2014 No. 10/236/DC(Tbl)/Reb/Correction/05/2673 of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal addressed to the Director Settlement Land Record, Manipur. The learned Tribunal shall try the case afresh after impleadment of the petitioners and dispose the case at the earliest. With this, the revision petition is disposed. Send back the case record of the Revenue Tribunal along with a copy of this order.