Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-petitioner sought permission from non-applicant No. 1 for construction of his house. It was alleged that the plan submitted by the petitioner was partly sanctioned and the petitioner started construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The authorities of non-applicant No. 1 gave a notice to the petitioner that certain portion constructed by him was without sanction and, therefore, a notice to show cause as to why the unauthorised construction should not be demolished was served on the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the suit for injunction, restraining non-applicant No. 1 from demolishing the construction already completed. During the pendency of this suit, non-applicant No 2 submitted an application that be being a neighbour having an adjacent house. was interested in these proceeding as according to non-applicant No. 2, the wall in dispute was over the wall between the two houses, of which title was claimed by non-applicant No.2. Learned Court below, after hearing the parties directed the petitioner-plaintiff to amend the plaint and join non-applicant No.2 as a defendant in the suit. 2. Held: The material question will be to examine the nature of the dispute between non-applicant No.1 and the petitioner in the suit. Admittedly, no question of title about any wall or, any part of the property is involved. It is a suit for injunction only and the basis of the suit is a notice to show cause issued by the authorities of non-applicant No.1 for demolition of a part of the construction which has been completed by the petitioner, on the ground that the construction is unauthorised; whereas the petitioner's claim is that whatever has been constructed, has been constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Apparently, questions of title are not at all involved in the dispute as it stands. At the same time', there is no question affecting the right or title, if any. Vesting in any part of the property in favour of non-applicant No.2. It was also contended on behalf of non-applicant No. 2 that as no stay order was granted in this revision petition, he has been joined as a defendant and has filed his written statement and therefore, it will be too late now to delete him from proceedings if it is found that joining of non-applicant No. 2 is not at all necessary for determination of the questions involved in the suit. The only grievance made by non-applicant No.2 appears to be that the petitioner has tempered with the sanctioned plan sanctioned by non-applicant No.1. Apparently what was sanctioned and whether a particular portion of the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not is a question with which non-applicant No. 1 alone is concerned. It also could not be disputed that the material question to be determined in the suit is with regard to the construction being in accordance with the sanctioned plan. It is also not in dispute that question of title to any wall or any part of the property is not at all involved in the present Suit Apparently, therefore, the questions that deserve to be determined in the suit are between the petitioner and non-applicant No.1. Non-applicant No.2 may think of joining the litigation to Support non-applicant No.1 but for such a reason, joining of non-applicant No.2 is not contemplated. The learned Court below has failed to notice as to how joining of non-applicant No. 2 could help in the determination of the question in dispute and, in the opinion of this Court, therefore, the learned Court below has committed a material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in allowing the application filed by non-applicant No.2 to be joined as a defendant. Panna v. Jeewanlal, 1976 JLJ 84 , Malchand and another v. Mst. Tetki Bai, 1977 WN 428, Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 836, Sampat Eai v. Madhu Singh, 1959 JLJ 624 , referred to. Revision allowed.