JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been maintained by the petitioner, against the order dated 20.08.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in CMA No. 190/6 of 2016 filed in case No. 35/1 of 2011, whereby an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC has been allowed and the present petitioner has been arrayed as defendant No. 3 in the suit. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that present respondents No. 1 and 2/applicants (for short “the applicants”) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2), read with Section 151 CPC for addition of Parshotam Dutt, S/o late Sh. Laxmi Dutt as party to the suit. It has been averred in the application filed by the applicants that they have filed civil suit against present proforma respondents No. 3 and 4/defendants (for short “defendants) for recovery of Rs. 10 lac on account of defamation, mental and physical torture committed by them by publishing defamatory statements in their daily Hindi Newspaper ‘Aapka Faisla’ on 11.05.2010 and 17.05.2010. It has been further averred by the applicants that vide their application dated 21.11.2012, filed under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, they have sought permission to file certain documents i.e. complaint and inquiry report etc. based on the aforesaid complaint. During preparation of case, it has been found that Sh. Parshotam Dutt Gautam S/o lat Sh. Laxmi Dutt Gautam, R/o Chhota Chowk, Nahan has also made complaints against them to the office of Additional Director General, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, H.P. Shimla, which in routine had come to Dy. S.P. P.S. S.V. and Anti Corruption Bureau, Nahan for inquiry and investigation. The Dy. S.P. conducted inquiry and investigation upon the said complaints, however during the inquiry, the complaint containing defamatory and false allegations, was found to be false. Accordingly, the applicants prayed in the application that as Parshotam Dutt Gautam is guilty of committing defamation, he is also required to be arrayed as party defendant in the suit. 3. In reply to the application, the defendants raised preliminary objection qua maintainability. On merits, it has been averred that the defendants did not publish any defamatory news against the applicants. 3. In reply to the application, the defendants raised preliminary objection qua maintainability. On merits, it has been averred that the defendants did not publish any defamatory news against the applicants. It has been further averred that complaint, if any, filed by Parshotam Dutt Gautam against the defendants, cannot be made subject matter of the present case and prayer for dismissal of the application has been made. 4. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 20.08.2016, allowed the application filed by the applicants, under Order 1, Rule 10(2), read with Section 151 CPC and impleaded Parshotam Dutt Gautam as party defendant No. 3 in the suit, hence the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit against the present petitioner and proforma respondents could not have been filed, as it was beyond limitation and on this ground only, learned Court below could not have made the petitioner as defendant, in these circumstances, the present petition may be allowed and order passed by the learned Court below on an application, under Order 1, Rule 10(2) be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has argued that even after becoming the party in the learned Court below, the present petitioner can always raise the issue of limitation, but there is no reason to say that he is not necessary party. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that making party to the petitioner in suit is abuse of the process of Court. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel or the parties, this Court has gone through the records in detail. 7. It has come on record, that prior to filing application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) the applicants/plaintiffs had also filed an application, under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC for placing on record the documents i.e. complaint and inquiry report, which was allowed on 01.04.2013. Wherein, Parshotam Dutt Gautam has filed a complaint against present respondent No. 1, which shows his involvement in the case and prima facie the view taken by the learned trial Court that the present petitioner is necessary party in the suit, is in accordance with law and on the basis of record and the libel/defamation, as pleaded in the plaint. Wherein, Parshotam Dutt Gautam has filed a complaint against present respondent No. 1, which shows his involvement in the case and prima facie the view taken by the learned trial Court that the present petitioner is necessary party in the suit, is in accordance with law and on the basis of record and the libel/defamation, as pleaded in the plaint. So, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court, impleading the present petitioner as defendant No. 3. 8. Now coming to the second aspect i.e. the suit is not maintainable, as it was barred by limitation, the plaintiffs can take challenge the said point in the learned trial Court and can even raise the preliminary objection to that regard. But, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned trial Court need not required to be interfered with, for the reason that the allegations, which have come in the pleadings, prima facie makes out a case against the present petitioner. So, the order passed by the learned trial Court, impleading the present petitioner as defendant No. 3 in the suit, is as per law and needs no interference. 9. In view of the above discussion, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 20th November, 2018.