JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 22.5.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Una, in CMA No. 1065/2019 in Civil Suit No. 361/2015, whereby application under Order I, rule 10(2) CPC, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') for impleadment of Shri Prem Singh, ex-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Bhadauri, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, came to be dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside impugned order and allow application under Order I, rule 10(2) CPC. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on account of damages against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter, 'defendant'), who was Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhadauri at the relevant time. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was signatory to the resolution, which being scandalous and defamatory, has lowered his image in the eye of general public and as such, she is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him. 3. It is not in dispute that after recoding evidence of both the parties, application under Order I, rule 10(2) CPC on behalf of the plaintiff came to be filed seeking therein impleadment of Prem Singh, ex-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Bhadauri. Plaintiff averred in the application that person namely Prem Singh, who is ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhadauri, is required to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the civil suit and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if said person is impleaded as defendant No.2. Plaintiff further averred that the application has been filed in bona fide manner and good faith, however, aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff came to be resisted by defendant, who categorically stated that preliminary objection with regard to non-joinder of parties was taken at the first instance at the time of filing of written statement. Plaintiff further averred that the application has been filed in bona fide manner and good faith, however, aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff came to be resisted by defendant, who categorically stated that preliminary objection with regard to non-joinder of parties was taken at the first instance at the time of filing of written statement. Defendant claimed that she in her written statement categorically stated that the person namely Prem Singh, who was Pradhan, of Gram Panchayat Bhadauri at the relevant time, is necessary party but despite that plaintiff chose not to file an application at that stage seeking therein impleadment of Prem Singh, as such, present application, which has been filed at such a belated stage, when trial is towards conclusion, is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings. 4. Court below having noticed pleadings adduced on record by the parties, dismissed the application by holding that impleadment of proposed defendant No.2 is unwarranted and would allow plaintiff to fill up lacunas in the case by leading additional evidence and impleadment of proposed defendant No.2 would revert the case to the stage of filing amended plaint and in this process, suit, which has come to a fag end, would stand vitiated. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such, same does not call for any interference. 6. Having carefully perused provisions of Order I, rule 10 CPC, this Court finds no force in the argument of Mr.Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff, that in terms of provisions contained under Order I, rule 10(2) CPC, Court is under obligation to order for impleadment or deletion of any of the parties at any stage, rather careful perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that whenever it appears to the Court that impleadment/deletion of any of the parties is necessary for the adjudication of the case, it may order for impleadment/deletion of such parties at any stage of trial. Recording of satisfaction by the court to the effect that such impleadment/deletion of a parties is necessary, is a sine qua non for the same. 7. Recording of satisfaction by the court to the effect that such impleadment/deletion of a parties is necessary, is a sine qua non for the same. 7. In the case at hand, it clearly emerges from the record that defendant at very first opportunity had raised objection with regard to non-joinder of the necessary party. It has been categorically stated in the written statement that person proposed to be impleaded as a defendant by way of application under reference is a necessary party but at that time, no steps ever came to be taken by the plaintiff for his impleadment, who is now stated to be a necessary party for proper adjudication of the civil suit. 8. This court finds from the record that before instituting suit at hand, plaintiff had also issued legal notice to Prem Singh, whose impleadment is now sought but, interestingly, at that time, suit for damage only came to be filed against the defendant. It is not in dispute that by way of legal notice, (Annexure R-1 annexed with the reply filed by defendant), plaintiff had made certain imputations/allegations against the proposed defendant but, it is not understood, what prevented him from impleading him as a defendant in the civil suit in the very beginning. It is also not in dispute before me that evidence of both the parties stands recorded and as such, this Court is in full agreement with the reasoning assigned by learned Court below that in the event of impleadment of proposed defendant No.2, case would revert back to the stage of filing amended plaint and great prejudice would be caused to the defendant, who has already suffered agony of trial for almost three years. 9. Consequently, in view of above, present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. Order passed by learned Court below is upheld. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Needless to say observations made in the present judgment shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of civil suit, which shall be decided on its own merit. Further, learned Court below, while deciding suit at hand, would also take into consideration, provisions of Order I, rule 9 CPC, which specifically provides that no suit shall be defeated on account of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties.