ORDER : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. By filing present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 4.10.2017 passed by 6th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Rajkot below Exh-15 in Regular Civil Suit No. 266 of 2016, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for being deleted from the array of parties to the suit has been dismissed by the Court below. 2. The petitioner is original defendant no. 2 and respondent no. 1 herein is the original plaintiff whereas respondent no. 2 is the original defendant no. 2 and respondent no. 3 is the original defendant no. 1. 3. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The brief facts of the case is that property situated in the vicinity of Raiya village, Rajkot being Survey No. 97 Paiki part of T.P. Scheme No. 1, Final Plot No. 741 paikee of which sub-plot no. 1/A admeasuring 483.00 sq. mts was originally belonging to one Mr. Rameshchandra Chakubhai Mehta who has sold it to other 4 persons by way of registered sale deed dated 18.12.2002. Thereafter, those 4 persons have sold Plot No. 1/A admeasuring 7.92 sq.mts (out of the original land) through Power of Attorney i.e. defendant no. 1 to one Varshaben Bharatbhai Jasani by way of registered sale deed dated 6.6.2003. Thereafter, Varshaben Bharatbhai Jasani constructed a shop on the said land and thereafter it was purchased by the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed dated 17.8.2007. Some construction activity was being carried out on the terrace of the plaintiff's shop. She has informed the defendant no. 2 to take necessary action for demolition of the construction as it is illegal for which the Corporation defendant no. 2 had issued notice to the other defendants and thereafter prevented them from carrying out any construction over the shop. Plaintiff has also issued notice to the private defendants which was replied by them jointly and has taken a stand that only inner part of the shop is sold to her and not terrace thereof. 2 had issued notice to the other defendants and thereafter prevented them from carrying out any construction over the shop. Plaintiff has also issued notice to the private defendants which was replied by them jointly and has taken a stand that only inner part of the shop is sold to her and not terrace thereof. As the Corporation did not take any action against the private defendants, the plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 266 of 2016 wherein the defendants have raised the contention that they have nothing to do with the property and only inner part of the shop was sold to the plaintiff and terrace was not sold to her. One of the contentions of both defendants is that they have nothing to do with the property and they have been wrongly arrayed as parties and requested to dismiss the Suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. They have preferred a separate application at Exh-15. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned Judge, by the impugned order dated 4.10.2017 was pleased to dismiss the said application. 6. Against the impugned order only defendant no. 2 has preferred this petition, contending the same fact which they have taken in the written statement and the Application at Exh-15. The said contention is that they have only replied to the notice of the plaintiff wherein they have stated that it is only inner part of the shop was sold and not terrace. That the learned trial Court has erred in treating them as necessary and proper party, which is not in consonance with the law. It is also contended that the property in question does not belong to defendant no. 2 nor he is connected with the suit property in question and, therefore, he is not a necessary party. It is also contended by the defendant no. 2 that defendant no. 1 is only power of attorney holder of Varshaben Bharatbhai Jasani and, therefore, he has also no connection with the suit property. It is also contended that construction is almost completed 2 years prior to institution of suit and this facts have not been considered properly by the learned trial Court. It is contended that he is not a necessary party and, therefore, impugned order of the trial Court is bad in law and the application filed by him, may be allowed. 7. Heard Mr. It is contended that he is not a necessary party and, therefore, impugned order of the trial Court is bad in law and the application filed by him, may be allowed. 7. Heard Mr. Zalak Pipaliya for the petitioner and Mr. Hriday Buch for the corporation. Plaintiff as well as the defendant no. 1 did not remain present though served with the notice. However, it appears from the office note that the original plaintiff has send a written argument by post and in view of Rule 31 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, the presentation of any matter or proceedings by person not represented by any advocate has to be made by such person personally and therefore the same has not been taken on record. 8. Mr. Pipaliya, learned advocate for the petitioner-defendant no. 2 has submitted the same fact which are narrated in the Memo of Petition and the contention raised by the defendant in their written statement and in Exh-15 in the Suit. He has contended that the shop was constructed by Varshaben Bharatbhai Jasani and it has been sold to the plaintiff through defendant no. 1 who is the Power of Attorney holder and present petitioner i.e. defendant no. 2 has no connection with the said sale or with the suit property. He has also contended that the original owner Varshaben Bharatbhai Jasani is not joined as party who is the necessary party. It is also contended that only bald allegations are made in the plaint. 9. While relying on the decision reported in 2002 (3) GCD 1896 in case of Kenny Bruno v. Chemie Organics, Mr. Pipaliya learned advocate has submitted that mere allegations regarding the role of defendant cannot be accepted. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for Mr. Nishant Lalakiya, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 -defendant no. 3 Corporation has submitted that the Corporation has already issued notice to the present petitioner as it was not implemented, necessary order was passed against them. He has also referred to the plaint and submitted that whatever allegations are made is against the private respondents. He also contended that the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and injunction. He has also contended that it is not necessary that the person who is in possession should be owner of the property himself. He has also referred to the plaint and submitted that whatever allegations are made is against the private respondents. He also contended that the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and injunction. He has also contended that it is not necessary that the person who is in possession should be owner of the property himself. According to him considering the averments made in the plaint, the present petitioner is a necessary party. 11. In rejoinder, Mr. Zalak Pipaliya learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner i.e. defendant no. 2 has nothing to do with the property and in absence of proper averment, he cannot be joined as party. He has further submitted that even in absence of the present petitioner, the suit can be prosecuted further against the remaining defendants. 12. It is well settled principle of law by catena of decisions that the High Court, while considering the matter in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not reverse the finding of fact as recorded by the Courts below. But it is not an absolute proposition. In a case where the finding is recorded without any legal evidence on the record, or on misreading of evidence or suffers from any legal infirmity, which materially prejudices the case of one of the parties or the finding is perverse, it would be open for the High Court to set aside such a finding and to take a different view. The exercise of the revisional power is broadly subject to the following conditions; (1) That the decision must be of a court subordinate to the High Court; (2) That there must be a case decided by a subordinate court; (3) No appeal must lie either to the High Court or to any lower appellate court against the decision; (4) In deciding the case, the subordinate court must appear to have - (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, or (c) acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court in exercising the revisional powers is in its very nature is a truncated power. The width of the powers of the revisional court cannot be equated with the powers of the appellate court. The High Court in exercising the revisional powers is in its very nature is a truncated power. The width of the powers of the revisional court cannot be equated with the powers of the appellate court. In exercising the legality and the propriety of the order under challenge, what is required to be seen by the High Court is whether it is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding precedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission to consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawn from the facts proved is such that no reasonable person could arrive at or the like. It is only in such situations that interference by the High Court in revision in a finding of fact will be justified. Mere possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional power. 13. In the case of Kenny Bruno v. Chemie Organics (supra) considering the facts of the case, that the petitioner therein had not played active role in circulation of the defamatory articles, was deleted from the array of the defendant in the Civil Suit. In that case, only bare allegations was made and, therefore, this Court has allowed the petition filed by the defendant no. 5 therein. 14. Now so far the present case is concerned, it appears from the record that there is no dispute as to ownership of the shop of the plaintiff. It also reveals that plaintiff has issued notice to the Rajkot Municipal Corporation regarding the trespass/encroachment by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 on the terrace of the shop dated 29.4.2016. It also appears from the record that the plaintiff has also served notice under Section 487 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation dated 15.6.2016 to the Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation for removal of the illegal construction made on the terrace of her shop. It is also found that the plaintiff has also issued notice to the private defendants and they have replied thereof. It is also admitted fact that both the defendants i.e. defendants nos. 1 and 2 have jointly filed written statement wherein they have raised the contention that only inner part of the shop has been sold to the plaintiff and not terrace. It is also revealed from the paper that the corporation has issued notice to the defendant no. It is also admitted fact that both the defendants i.e. defendants nos. 1 and 2 have jointly filed written statement wherein they have raised the contention that only inner part of the shop has been sold to the plaintiff and not terrace. It is also revealed from the paper that the corporation has issued notice to the defendant no. 2 for showing cause as to why illegal construction should not be removed, which is dated 6.10.2016, and also injunction restraining the defendant from carrying out any construction over the terrace of the shop dated 6.10.2016. It also appears from the record that thereafter the corporation has also informed the defendant no. 2 to remove the construction within 4 days. It appears from the record that clear averments have been made by the plaintiff against private defendants and considering the stand taken by the private defendants that only inner part of the shop was sold to the plaintiff and not terrace thereof, is a fact as well as issuance of notice by the corporation to the defendant no. 2 and non-reply, thereof, are factors which suggest that they are doing something over the property. 15. On perusal of the impugned order of the learned trial Court, it appears that the trial Court has considered factual aspect in a proper perspective and has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application of the defendant nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, impugned order does not warrant any interference. 16. In view of the above the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Notice discharged.