WPMS No. 1267 of 2002 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. The ordersheet indicates that the defendants have been served. No one appears nor any counter affidavit has been filed. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that he purchased the property from the defendants and now the defendants are threatening to evict him. Consequently, a suit for injunction was filed praying that the defendants should be restrained from evicting the plaintiff from the property in question. An impleadment application was filed by the defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. claiming that the defendants had no right to sell the property to the plaintiff since the property was not divided by metes and bounds and that the defendants are also the co-sharers. This application was allowed against which the defendants filed a revision which was also allowed and the applicant Raj Kamal was directed to be impleaded as a party. The plaintiff, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the court finds that no doubt the plaintiff is the dominus litis and has a right to choose his opponent but considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record, the Court finds that the defendant is the co-sharer which has not been denied and, consequently, has a right to interfere in the decree so sought by the plaintiff. The revisional court was justified in directing Shri Raj Kamal to be impleaded as a necessary party. The Court, accordingly, does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. Certified copy of the order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within ten days from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 27.12.2011 Shiv