JUDGMENT : Vivek Chaudhary, J. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri J.P. Mathur, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/1, 3, 6/1. No one is present for rest of the opposite parties. 2. Present civil revision is filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 25.02.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-I Lakhimpur Kheri. By the impugned order, the learned court below has allowed application no.82-Ga2, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for deleting the name of defendant no.2 from the array of parties. 3. Plaintiff's case is that plaintiff trust is landlord of the shop and has filed the suit for eviction of defendant no.1 and for damagers. Regarding defendant no.2 it is stated in the plaint that he is a suspended Sarvarakar of the trust and is in collusion against the trust with respondent no.1 and for that reason, defendant no.2 is impleaded as a defendant to the suit. Now, by the application no.82-Ga2, it is stated that since no relief is sought against defendant no.2, hence, his name may be deleted from the array of parties. Defendant no.2/revisionist has opposed the said application claiming that there are serious allegations against defendant no.2/revisionist and he has interest in the suit property, hence, he is a necessary and proper party. 4. The Court below has allowed the said application solely on the ground that there is no relief sought against the defendant no.2 and for decree to be passed in suit, defendant no.2 is not required. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is much more wider than the relief that sought in the suit. Learned counsel for revisionist places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vidur Impex and traders Private Limited and Others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and Others, reported in 2012 (8) SCC 384 wherein after considering the law settled by Supreme Court in number of cases, the court held:- "41.Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 41.1. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and Others, reported in 2012 (8) SCC 384 wherein after considering the law settled by Supreme Court in number of cases, the court held:- "41.Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: 41.1. The court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 41.2 A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court. 41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff. 41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the court or the application is unduly delayed then the court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment. (emphasis added)" 6. Admittedly, revisionist/defendant no.2 is a necessary party whose presence is required for disposal of the suit. For that reason only, he was made a defendant in the plaint. Now at a later stage, merely on the ground that no relief is being sought against him, his name cannot be deleted. The power of the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is much wider than merely look into as to whether any relief is sought against the defendant or not. Now at a later stage, merely on the ground that no relief is being sought against him, his name cannot be deleted. The power of the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is much wider than merely look into as to whether any relief is sought against the defendant or not. The law is settled by the judgment in case of Vidur Impex (Supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. In view of the admitted situation that revisionist/defendant no.2 has interest in the property and in the proper disposal of the present suit, no fault could be found of his being a party to the suit. 8. In view thereof, the order dated 25.02.2005 cannot stand and is set aside, the civil revision is allowed. 9. Since, the matter is pending since the year 2005, the court below shall proceed with the matter expeditiously, in view of policy to decide matters expeditiously, which are pending for more than five years.