JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the revisionist, in pursuance of the directions contained in the earlier order dated 14.11.2017, has produced certified copies of the three sale deeds in favour of the revisionist-applicant. 2. This revision is directed against an order dated 18.08.2014, whereby an impleadment application filed by the applicant in a suit for permanent injunction was rejected. 3. The suit was filed by the opposite party, regarding 1022 sq. yards of khasra plot no. 533, situated in Kaija Deepak Vihar, Pargana Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and occupation of the residential portion and shops constructed on this 1022 sq. yards. 4. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the revisionist claiming on the basis of the three sale deeds in her favour. She claims to be the owner in possession of 300 sq. yards of plot no. 533. She also sought impleadment on the basis of a compromise decree in an earlier suit to which her vendee and predecessor-in-interest was, a signatory. 5. The trial Court rejected the impleadment application on the ground that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party was prior in time and that the plaintiff's vendor and predecessor-in-interest was not a signatory to the compromise in the earlier suit. 6. Before this Court, the contention of counsel for the revisionist is that the impleadment application has wrongly been rejected. He submits that on the basis of the sale deeds filed before the Court below and which have been produced for perusal by this Court, the interest of the revisionist in the plot in suit is clearly established and, therefore, the Court below has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the impleadment application. 7. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon an unreported decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10779-10780 of 2013, arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 13098-13099/2012, N. Anantha Reddy Vs. Anshu Kathuria & Ors. 8. In this judgment, relied upon by counsel for the revisionist, it has been held that “The object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead a third party to the suit is that the dispute in the suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Anshu Kathuria & Ors. 8. In this judgment, relied upon by counsel for the revisionist, it has been held that “The object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead a third party to the suit is that the dispute in the suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There must be some semblance of right to the proposed party.” 9. In the judgment cited, the trial Court had allowed the impleadment application but the order had been reversed by the High Court. 10. Upon hearing counsel for the revisionist and upon a perusal of the record, apart from the reasons given by the trial Court while rejecting the application for impleadment, this Court finds that the impleadment application itself, filed by the applicant in the Court below categorically set-up a case of her title to 300 sq. yards of plot no. 533, but additionally, it was stated that the land purchased by the revisionist-applicant, is situated west of the land in suit. ;g rF; Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izkfFkZ;k ds }kjk iathd`r cSukeksa ls mijksDr of.kZr dqy 300 oxZ xt Hkwfe [kjhnh x;h gS vkSj ;g Hkwfe okn i= ds vUrxZr of.kZr lEifRr ds if'pe fn'kk esa fLFkr gS ftleas N% nqdkus izkfFkZ;k ds }kjk cuk;h x;h gS vkSj nqdkuksa ds lkeus if'pe fn'kk esa 30 fQV pkSM+k jkLrk gSA 11. In my considered opinion, in view of the extract of the impleadment application quoted above, the case of the applicant is that her 300 sq. yards of plot no. 533 is different from the 1022 sq. yards regarding which the suit has been filed. 12. This Court therefore, finds no illegality in the order rejecting the impleadment application. 13. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.