side also. Since the question as to whether the water 'chal' mentioned in the plaint is a public water 'chal', whether it is excluded from the properties sold to the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 2 and whether the water 'chal' is part of Bhaskaran’s property etc., are all matters to be considered in the suit, so as to ascertain as to whether the said disputed water 'chal' is a public water 'chal' or it is part of the property of the plaintiff or not. So in order to ascertain that fact the court below found that as per the commissioners report, the disputed water 'chal' passes through the property of the said Bhaskaran, without him on party array, the same cannot be properly adjudicated as the dispute is regarding boundary of the property. So the neighboring property owner whose interest is also to be considered for the purpose of the dispute in the matter, he has to be impleded as a necessary party and allowed by the court below. So under such circumstances, the conclusion arrived from the court below that he is also a necessary party to the proceedings in view of the commissioners report and the nature of dispute involved, court below has rightly exercised the discretion in allowing the applications for impleading and consequential amendment to impleading. There is no illegality committed by the court below in passing the impugned orders warranting interference at the hands of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
