ORDER : 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the District Judge, Sriganganagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The application has been filed by the petitioner with the submissions that as necessary party i.e. the owner of the respondent No.1-Swimming Pool has not been impleaded as party, the suit was liable to be rejected. 3. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that such a plea cannot be entertained under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC and came to the conclusion that from a bare reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by law and, consequently, rejected the application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of the owner of the Swimming Pool, the suit cannot be maintained and, therefore, the trial court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Further submissions have been made that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has purchased the property in question and, therefore, the petitioner in his status as owner should have been impleaded as party and, therefore, the trial court committed error in rejecting the application. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 6. The suit is pending since the year 2009, apparently no objection pertaining to non-impleadment of necessary party was raised as it is apparent from the issues that no issue in this regard has been framed by the trial court. 7. After a passage of over 9 years, the present application has been filed seeking dismissal of the suit for alleged non-impleadment. The issue of non-impleadment of the party has to be raised in the written statement and cannot be made subject matter of filing application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC unless the impleadment of the party is required under any statutory enactment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any provision requiring impleadment as sought by the petitioner. In view thereof, there is no substance in the revision petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.