JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the order dated February 7, 1981 of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur passed in civil original suit No. 175 of 1980 by which he dismissed the petitioner's application under order I, Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party to the suit. 2. Plaintiff non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit against the defendant-non-petitioner No. 3 for arrears of rent and ejectment. The defendant contested the suit and inter-alia, pleaded that the landlord of the premises in question is the petitioner and he has paid rent to him. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the suit on October 25, 1980, the petitioner moved an application that he is the landlord of the premises in question and, therefore, he may be impleaded as party to the suit. The learned Additional Civil Judge, vide his order dated February 7, 1981 dismissed the application. Hence, this revision by the petitioner under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. In Mst. Singer Kanwar v. Dhoop Chand, 1953 RLW 320, Dave, J. defendant raised a plea that a person other than the plaintiff is the landlord, the other person is not a necessary party. The learned Judge relied on Lodai Mohallah v. Kali Dass Roy, ILR VIII Cal. Series P. 238; Mudaliar v. Komate Chettiar, AIR 1920 Madras 91 and Srila Sri Sudramaniya Desika Genana, Sambande Pandara Sannadhi v. R. Ananthakrishnaswami Naidu, AIR 1932 Madras 688. In the suit, what the Court will be required to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent as payable to the plaintiff and he is liable to be evicted by the plaintiff. If the petitioner is allowed to be impleaded as party, the question of his title would unnecessarily arise in a simple suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to U.I. Trust v. Raj Kumar, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 131. Having read the aforesaid decision, I have no hesitation in saying that it has no bearing on the case in hand. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to U.I. Trust v. Raj Kumar, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 131. Having read the aforesaid decision, I have no hesitation in saying that it has no bearing on the case in hand. 4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raz Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 886 have held that the question of addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in the view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case, but in some case, it may raise controversies as to the power of the Court in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in Section 115 of the Code. It was further held that in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject-matter of litigation and that where the subject-matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the Court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy. In that case, it was observed as under : "The cases completed in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act. In cases covered by those statutory declaration prayed for, on a more admission of the claim by the defendant, if the Court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof the question of status affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come and in view of that consideration the rule of present interest as evolved by case law relating to dispute about property, does not apply with full force; and the rule laid down in Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act is not exactly a rule of res judicata. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another." No jurisdictional error was committed by the learned Additional Civil Judge when he dismissed the petitioners application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party to the suit. 5. No ground for interference with the order under revision is made out. The revision petition if dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******