Short Note : 1. One Darshanlal Tiwari, was the landlord and owner of the disputed house. That house was sold by Dashrathlal in two equal parts. One part was sold to one Bhaiyalal and his wife Nenabai. The other portion of the house was sold to one Shri Chaurasia Shri Chaurasia sold, in turn, to the plaintiff Ramlakhan. Ramlakhan filed a suit for eviction against Pyaribai. During the pendency of the suit, Pyaribai died. Therefore, her only daughter Gitabai was made a party and the suit proceeded against her. Shantibai, the app1icant, submitted an application under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that she was in possession of the whole of the property as a tenant and, therefore, she should be made a party to the proceedings. The trial Court had rejected the application. Held : The question is if a decree is passed against Gitabai whether the interests of the present petitioner will be effected or not. In the opinion of this Court, a decree against the present defendant will not effect the right of the petitioner as well as her possession cannot be disturbed if she is in actual possession in her own rights. Therefore, the trial Courts rejection of the application is absolutely correct. Ishaque Ahmad v. Ramsingh, 1976 MPLJ SN 48, Ram Jankibai Mandir v. Haridas Guru Sarjoodas and others, 1975 JLJ 381 , distinguished. Revision dismissed.