JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the applicant, who is a third party to the writ petition, seeking to impelad her as party respondent in the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents, particularly the principal respondent/writ petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has filed a money suit being M.S.No.51 of 2019 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West for recovery of money, wherein the principal respondent/writ petitioner filed J.M.Case No.577 of 2019 seeking leave to defend the suit and by the order dated 7.2.2020, the learned Civil Judge allowed the writ petitioner to contest the suit, subject to deposit the admitted amount of Rs.3.50 lakh on or before 7.3.2020. He would submit that by concealing the aforesaid order passed by the learned Civil Judge, the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition. Since the applicant is necessary party to the writ petition, which was filed for disbursement of leave encashment benefit to tune of Rs.5,35,600/-, the applicant should be impleaded as fourth respondent in the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the applicant has no legal right to seek impleadment in the writ petition filed by the first respondent and therefore, the Miscellaneous Case is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. Admittedly, W.P.(C) No.43 of 2021 has been filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner against the official respondents with the following prayer: “to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, their officers and agents to pay the petitioner cash equivalent leave salary/leave encashment benefit amounting to Rs.5,35,600/- forthwith with interest thereof.” 7. The necessity for filing the writ petition by the first respondent has been clearly narrated by the writ petitioner stating that since she having been retired from service at the post of UDC, Nambol L.Sanoi College on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.1.2020, she was not paid the leave encashment benefit to the tune of Rs.5,35,600/- and in this regard, despite her application dated 3.2.2020, the respondent authorities have not paid the leave encashment benefit to her. 8. 8. As could be seen from the order dated 7.2.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge in J.M.Case No.577 of 2019 in M.S.No.51 of 2019 that the applicant had filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.11 lakh from the writ petitioner, wherein the writ petitioner filed application under Order 37, Rule 5 CPC seeking leave to defend the suit. In that proceedings, the writ petitioner admitted the obtaining of loan of Rs.8.50 lakh from the applicant herein and stated that she had repaid Rs.5.00 lakh to the applicant and she is ready to repay the remaining balance as soon as she gets her pension benefits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Civil Judge, finds that the writ petitioner has substantial defense and accordingly, directed the defendant to defend the suit, subject to deposit of Rs.3.50 lakhs on or before 7.3.2020 in the account of the Nazir/Account of the District and Sessions Judge, Imphal West. 9. Whether or not the condition imposed by the learned Civil Judge has been duly complied with by the writ petitioner is not an issue in the present application and by citing the said order of the learned Civil Judge dated 7.2.2020, the applicant cannot seek to implead her as fourth respondent in the writ petition, which was admittedly filed against the official respondents for disbursement of the leave encashment benefit. If really, the writ petitioner has failed to obey the order of the learned Civil Judge passed in the suit, the applicant has to take measures in accordance with law and not by way of impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition. There is no merit in the Miscellaneous Case filed by the applicant. 10. Accordingly, M.C. (WP(C)) No.103 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.43 of 2021 is dismissed. No costs.