JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Matter comes upon application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of applicant Seth Jugal Dass Ganeriwala Charitable Trust through Trustee and General Power of Attorney holder Hanuman Prasad. 2. In the application, the facts stated are to the effect that in Samwat 1914, corresponding to year 1957, a piece of land was purchased by common ancestors of the parties which is the subject matter of litigation on which a monument ;Chhatri' and rooms were constructed. It is averred that an agreement between all the owners of ;Chhatri', including father of Lalit Kumar, nonapplicant/ petitioner No.1 was executed on 11th of August, 1986 in favour of Samast Ganeriwala Parivar Dharmik Sansthan through Manager Hanuman Prasad and power of attorney was executed in his favour to supervise the property and also to take legal action against unauthorized occupants. It is further averred in the application that entire property was given to Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti on license. The Secretary of that institution without permission of owners trespassed over entire ;Chhatri' and open space available there and also applied to the Municipal Board for permission to construct shops. The case, as has been sought to be set up by the applicant, Jugal Dass Ganeriwala Charitable Trust, is that petitioner No.1 Lalit Kumar deliberately and intentionally not made the applicant party to the revision petition despite the fact that it is a proper and necessary party for just decision of the case being original decree-holder of the property in question for which execution petition was filed. The applicant apprehends that if the revision petition is allowed without impleading it, the rights of the true decree-holders shall be badly affected. 3. Reply to the application moved by Hanuman Prasad power of attorney holder and trustee of applicant Jugal Dass Ganeriwala Charitable Trust, has been filed by petitioner-non-applicant Lalit Kumar stating inter-alia that the applicant Trust or its power of attorney Hanuman Prasad has no right, title, or interest in the ;Chhatri'. It is further averred that no agreement was ever entered into with Hanuman Prasad agreeing that ;Chhatri' would vest in the Trust rather the suit was prosecuted by the plaintiffs jointly in their individual capacity and not by any Sansthan or Trust and the decree was passed in favour of Ganeriwalas of Ratangarh in their personal capacity and not in favour of any Sansthan or Trust. 4. According to non-applicant Lalit Kumar, the alleged trust is unknown to the litigation and since filling of suit to the final judgment passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, existence of alleged Trust was never disclosed, nor it was a party to the proceeding and the 'Chhatri' never vested in the alleged Trust. It is stated that some of the owners of 'Chhatri' jointly filed a suit for possession and mesne profits in their individual capacity through their Power of Attorney Hanuman Prasad, against the judgment-debtor Shri Ram Pathya Granthaghar Samiti, which was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed by first appellate Court and said decree was confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal, as such, in compliance of judgment dated 09.12.2014 passed in second appeal, respondent judgment-debtor handed over possession of 'Chhatri' and shops to the petitioner, who himself is decree-holder, as well as Power of Attorney holder of some other decree-holders. The petitioner further stated that the suit was filed by 43 persons while the first appeal was filed by 35 persons only and out of them some died during the pendency of appeal, but dishonestly legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs appellants were not made party to the proceedings by the Power of Attorney Holder Hanuman Prasad. Emphasis is laid on the question of abatement of suit and the appeal stating that this Court by its judgment dated 26.10.2010 passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.192/2010 (Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti vs. Shri Kishan and Ors.), held that any co-owner may recover possession of disputed 'Chhatri' and right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiffs appellants. It is stressed that alleged Trust was not party to the proceedings in which the decree was passed and the applicant has not provided any legal document to show that subject matter of dispute the ;Chhatri' was either donated, transferred or relinquished in favour of the Trust. 5. Non-applicant/petitioner Lalit Kumar has denied that he filed the application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC in Second Appeal in connivance with the contesting defendant, rather asserted his right being legal representative of plaintiff No.40. 5. Non-applicant/petitioner Lalit Kumar has denied that he filed the application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC in Second Appeal in connivance with the contesting defendant, rather asserted his right being legal representative of plaintiff No.40. The non applicant has stated that it was legal duty of Hanuman Prasad to add legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs as party to the suit and also in appeal but he dishonestly did not do so as such he had to apply for his impleadment as party in the second appeal. The non-applicant also refuted that he was added as proforma plaintiff and stated that he was made party as legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.40, his father Shri Govind Prasad Ganeriwala. According to him, there is nothing unnatural and illegal in executing agreement in favour of judgment-debtor to save property of the community from dishonest plan of Hanuman Prasad in whom the Ganeriwala's families of Ratangarh lost faith and given Power of Attorney in his favour. It is also the case of the non-applicant that learned Executing Court did not disallow the application under Order XXI, Rule 2 CPC on the ground that decree was not satisfied out of Court but learned lower Court dismissed the application only on the ground that application was not filed by all the decree-holders, which was practically not possible at all as some of the decree-holders were misguided by Hanuman Prasad. 6. The contention of non-applicant is that applicant has no right to question the Power of attorney executed in his favour by making false allegations and narrating distorted facts, who himself had intentionally not the legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs party to the proceedings. Non-applicant reiterated that the Trust was not a party to the suit and appeal and no decree was passed in favour of alleged Trust whereas he is looking after the temple of Ganeriwalas community "Shri Ramchandra Ji Mandir, Ratangarh" as Managing Trustee and is engaged in religious activities of Ganeriwalas community of Ratangarh. It is stressed that applicant has admitted about execution of Power of Attorney in favour of the non-applicant/petitioner to take possession of 'Chhatri' as per judgment dated 09.12.2014, as such the application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC losses its very basis and deserves to be dismissed only on this count alone. It is stressed that applicant has admitted about execution of Power of Attorney in favour of the non-applicant/petitioner to take possession of 'Chhatri' as per judgment dated 09.12.2014, as such the application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC losses its very basis and deserves to be dismissed only on this count alone. Non-applicant asserted that physical possession of the ;Chhatri' is with him and the shops in question are in possession of tenants, who recognize him as landlord and are paying rent either to him or depositing the same in Bank account of "Shri Ramchandra Ji Mandir Trust Fund Society, Ratangarh" for the benefit of Ganeriwala's community. 7. It is also the case of non-applicant that the learned Executing Court did not add the Trust as party as there was no legal need to implead it and here also there is no legal requirement to make it a party in revision petition as the alleged Trust was not a party either to the suit or appeal and the decree was not passed in its favour, therefore, alleged Trust is neither necessary nor proper party to the proceedings and application deserves to be dismissed. In the last, non-applicant/petitioner pleaded that in light of decision of this Court dated 26.10.2010, he is legally competent and authorized to take possession of 'Chhatri' and receive the payable amount of cost from judgment-debtor. The non-applicant/petitioner prayed for rejection of the application. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Jaipur Bench of this Court dated 30th of August, 2013 in Shiv Kumar vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.137/2003). 10. Before proceeding to decide the application, checkered history of the case, as projected in the revision petition, may be summarized. 11. A suit for possession and mesne profits for use and occupation was filed against respondent in the revision petition Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti, Ratangarh (hereinafter referred to as ;Granthagar Samiti') by Basant Kumar (father of petitioner No.1) & 42 Ors. through power of attorney holder Hanuman Prasad in the Court of District Judge, Churu on the ground of title, which after transfer came to be dismissed by learned trial Court on 9th of April, 2003. through power of attorney holder Hanuman Prasad in the Court of District Judge, Churu on the ground of title, which after transfer came to be dismissed by learned trial Court on 9th of April, 2003. It so happened that by that time, 8 plaintiffs of the suit, including father of petitioner Lalit Kumar expired and therefore the remaining 35 plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh through their power of attorney Hanuman Prasad. When the said appeal was pending, 16 more plaintiffs expired but no steps were taken by the power of attorney holder for bringing their legal representatives on record in the appeal by filing requisite application. The defendant Granthagar Samiti moved an application that appeal against those dead persons had automatically abated long back and the remaining appellant-original-plaintiffs has no right to continue the appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the application on 31st of June, 2010 and allowed the remaining original plaintiffs to continue with the appeal. 12. Against that order, defendant Granthagar Samiti filed a revision before this Court which was allowed on 26th of October 2010 holding that surviving plaintiffs have the right to sue. Later on, after hearing the parties, learned appellate Court decreed the suit on 29th of March, 2011 reversing the judgment and decree of learned trial Court. The defendant Granthagar Samiti challenged the judgment and decree of learned appellate Court by filing second appeal before this Court in which present petitioner Lalit Kumar and his brothers filed a joint application under Order I, Rule 10 r/w section 151 CPC for impleading them as party respondents and same was allowed vide order dated 22.09.2016 arraying them as respondents. Ultimately, the second appeal filed by defendant Granthagar Samiti was dismissed on 9th of December, 2014 affirming the judgment and decree passed by appellate Court. The efforts made by respondent Granthagar Samiti to challenge the order passed in second appeal before Apex Court also proved abortive and as such the decree passed by appellate Court attained finality and it was liable to satisfy the decree. 13. The efforts made by respondent Granthagar Samiti to challenge the order passed in second appeal before Apex Court also proved abortive and as such the decree passed by appellate Court attained finality and it was liable to satisfy the decree. 13. Lalit Kumar, petitioner in the instant revision petition, filed Execution Application before trial Court (executing Court) stating that during the pendency of litigation, some original plaintiffs and heirs/successors of expired plaintiffs lost confidence in original power of attorney holder Hanuman Prasad and reposed their confidence him (son of plaintiff No.40) and also appointed him their power of attorney for taking possession of disputed property and get benefits flowing from the decree passed by appellate Court. As per averments, he contacted the judgment-debtor and received possession of disputed property ;Chhatri' and also Rs. 50,000 of costs awarded in second appeal. It is further averred that pursuant thereto, on 19th of March, 2015 he filed Execution Application before learned trial Court to get certified that the decree passed by appellate Court was fully satisfied out of the Court and it is in that Execution Case No.2/15 (Lalit Kumar Ganeriwala vs. Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti, Ratangarh & Ors.) by the order impugned, learned trial Court has rejected the application of petitioner Lalit Kumar Ganeriwala filed under Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC seeking certification of satisfying decree passed in Civil First Appeal No.5/2003 (Basant Kumar & Ors. vs. Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti, Ratangarh & Ors.) in terms of the compromise/arrangement arrived at out of the Court, against which he has filed the instant revision petition in which the applicant has filed the application for impleadment. 14. In the backdrop of lis involved in the revision petition, which is essentially directed against the impugned order rejecting petitioner's application under Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, there remains no quarrel that in the original suit for possession of immovable property, perpetual injunction and removal of encroachment as well as recovery of mense profit for use of the property, filed by 43 plaintiffs, including father of petitioner No.1 & 3 as plaintiff No.40, on behalf of all the plaintiffs applicant was power of attorney holder. However, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, a first appeal was preferred, which was allowed and against which second appeal too was dismissed. However, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, a first appeal was preferred, which was allowed and against which second appeal too was dismissed. At the stage of execution, which was filed by the petitioner by invoking Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, petitioner No.1 did not join other decree-holders for execution of the decree. There was some dispute about collusion between petitioner No.1 and first respondent and that eventually led to rejection of his prayer under Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2 CPC. 15. The endeavour made by the applicant is to assist the Court in revision petition for effectual and complete adjudication of the lis involved therein. It is not in dispute that applicant's nexus with the litigation, may be as a power of attorney holder of all the plaintiffs, is clear and explicit. Besides that, applicant has set out a case that petitioner wants to reap fruits of the decree by isolating other plaintiffs whereas in fact all the owners of ;Chhatri', including he himself, executed an agreement on 11th of August, 1986 in favour of Samast Ganeriwala Pariwar Dharmik Sansthan and by the said agreement, applicant was authorized to supervise the said property and take legal action before the Courts of law against unauthorized occupants on the property in question. 16. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it is rather difficult to comprehend that he is not a proper party to the revision petition, rather substantially appears to be a necessary party. The contention of the learned counsel that there is no registered instrument of gift or trust deed in favour of aforementioned Sansthan appears to be quite alluring but not of substance. Supreme Court, in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. vs. State of Rajasthan, ( AIR 1963 SC 1638 ) , while examining that issue observed: "In our opinion, the High Court was in error in not giving effect to this transfer on the ground that no gift or trust deed had been duly executed by the Tilkayat in that behalf. A dedication of private property to a charity need not to be made by a writing; it can be made orally or even can be inferred from conduct." 17. A dedication of private property to a charity need not to be made by a writing; it can be made orally or even can be inferred from conduct." 17. In a later judgment, in case of Kapoor Chand vs. Ganesh Dutt & Ors., ( AIR 1993 SC 1145 ) , Supreme Court, while relying on the decision in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj (supra), reiterated the same principle, by observing as under: "As regards dedication of private property for a religious or charitable purpose, the law is well-settled that dedication need not be made in writing and can be made orally or can be inferred from conduct. (see: B.K. Mukherjee, Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, 5th Ed. p.106; Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharas vs. State of Rajasthan, (1964) 1 SCR 561 , at Pp.629-30; ( AIR 1963 SC 1638 at Pp.1663-64)." 18. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 137/2003 (Shiv Kumar vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., decided on 30th August, 2013), has also followed the said decision. True it is that the concept of dominus litus is to be given due credence but then Order XXI, Rule 1 & 2 CPC is an exception to the same and in appropriate cases Court can implead necessary or proper party for effectual and complete adjudication of the lis involved. 19. In overall scenario, the case set up by the applicant nowhere indicates that he is making an attempt to inter-meddle in the matter for any vested interest or personal gains. The cause sought to be espoused by him is for and on behalf of the Trust as its authorized representative. Therefore, I am not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner questioning locus of the applicant to join as party to the litigation. In fact, if the applicant is allowed to join as party to the revision petition, his presence would help the Court for proper and effective adjudication of the lis involved therein. In view thereof, the application is allowed and applicant Seth Jugal Dass Ganeriwala Charitable Trust is allowed to be impleaded as party respondent in the revision petition.